The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-30 00:00:00

PEIE SUN LONDON SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 30, 185 7i

LAW INTELLIGEI4CE.—(This Day.)

#SPOETINg lAI TEL LigE.

hr Patai BATLwATs.

.Leasing
Companies

..Closing Prices
this day.

J3uelnesl
this dsj,

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings at Guildhal, before Mr. Baron Channell and
a Common Jury.)
LANVIN V. RAND.
This was an action for the recovery of 157 Z. 103., on 1:
a bill of exchange, drawn by a person named Bedford, 1
at one time a partner with the defendant and Mr. Laurie,
17
the present M.P. for Barintaple, coach builders, &c., r 7
Oxford-street, and discounted by the plaintiff, a bill die- 17
counter, (f Birchiu-lane. It appeared from the evidence ;77
that the firm was in 'the habit of applying to the plain- 11
tiff and obtaining discounts from them, and on the 16th 117
January, 1857, Bedford ca;led on the plaintiff and asked
him to discount a bill for 1571. 10e. on the firm, in the 11
name of Bedford and Rani, because Mr. Laurie, who 11
was desirous of getting into Parliament, did not wish 1
for his name to appear in the, frm. Bedford indorsed 11
the bill as Bedford and Rand, and in consequence of the
plaintiff not liking the indorsement without the name of 11
Laurie, Bedford wrote under the indorsement another, 1
viz., Laurie, Bedford, and Brand. The bill was then
discounted. When it became dne it was dishonoured,
and the plaintiff wrote to Llr. Laurie, who called on him „ liroa9
in Birchin-lane, and saw the bill and declared the in
dor-Bement to be a forgery, and stated that the partner-
ship was dissolved in December, 1855, and gazetted.
Mr. Laurie was called on his subpoena, but did not at-
tend ; and, after some further evidence, Mr. James, for
the defendant, said that in point of law there was really
no defence to this action, hut he thought it right to say

Ln. &N. W.
Irlaledon

It. 100 Buckghamsh.
I. 100 Clydesdale Jc.
5 all Col.Stour Vy.
It. 100 E. Lm. g. 6 p.r
5 all E. lin. H. Sh.
It. 100 Glas. Barr. &
Neils. Direct.
it. 100 Do. New
all GlstrADn.Fr
50 all Hull & Selby
,!5 all Do. Shares
1.2 i all Do. 1 Shares
121 all Lon.&Greenw
tO all Do. Preference
it. 100 Lou. Til., &S.
10 7i Do. Birk. Sh.
5i all M.anch.Bxton.
and Matlock
it. 100 Mdld. Bradfd.
51 NONG market
BuryE.G.spc.
50 all N.&Est.s p.c.
50 all Do. 6 per ct..,
50 all Do.Fixedsp.c
25 all Prest. &Wyre
14 all Do. Shrs. A
St. 1100 Roystn.& Hit.
10 all Shrews.& Her
12 all S. Staffordsh..
50 , all WearVal.g6pe

93 - 93

ii. = ii

E.U.&E.O
Gt.Northnl
E. Count.
Caldonian.

*ii ::: ii

Do
Gt.""Nestia
&
Do

fC6 = liiii

S. Eastern.
Do ...... I
Pcto & Co
Do
La. &N. W
& Midld
Midland

—12 i
23
104 106
par—gip

88 - f.X)

E. Connt 1
Do

id -
54

L. &IS . W
Do
Gt.Northn
T. Brassey
M. MCI ean
StkArDar
Do

1120 - 133
8 - 9
9 - 9i

25 all Do..
St.lloo
,Wilts&Somrat

31 - 32
88 - 89

S SHARES._

-- 95

that the proceeds of the bill never reached the defendant,
uor did it appear in the books. The bill was discounted
in January, and shortly after Mr. Bedford left the firm,
leaving the defendant, who was still carrying on the
I:witless in Oxford-street, to.discharge a number of such
liabilities.

54 - 96

'5l 7- s#

1108 -
108 -

Mr. Bedford, who was in court, protested against the
remarks of the learned counsel, and stated his readiness
to enter the witness box and, nsWer any questions that
might be put to him. He alluded to his attendance on
his enbpcena and Mr. Laurie's absence.
.4. verdict was then taken for the plaintiff for
,the
•
amount claimed.

-
12 -12 i

1 -

••• - •••
71 - 72

••• -
'll3 ---

- 107
102

1105
Iwo