The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-18 00:00:00

This was an action upon a bill of exchange for
3001., drawn by the defendant, who is a cornet in
the 3d Dragoons, and accepted by Mr. Joseph
Patton, also a cornet in the same regiment, and
which was endorsed to the plaintiff by a person
named Curlewis. There was a number of pleas put
upon the record by the defendant, but the only
material one was a plea that the bill in question
had been fraudulently obtained by a person named
John Charles Johns, and that no consideration
had been given for it by the plaintiff.
Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Honeyman
were counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. E. James, Q.C.,
and. Mr. Pollock were for the defendant.
It appeared that the bill which was the subject
of the action was dated the 27th September, 1856,
at three months' date, and it bore the indorsement
of Johns and also that of Mr. Curlewis, and the
fact of the notice of dishonour was admitted, and
these formal facts having been put in evidence, the
case for the plaintiff was closed.
Mr. James addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant, and he said that the present case was
one that would require their most careful consider-
ation because there could be no doubt that the
defendant had been robbed of this bill, under the
pretence that it should be discounted for him, and
although there was always considerable difficulty
in making out the real facts connected with these
bill transactions, he hoped to be able to satisfy them
that this was really the case in the present inst ince.
The defendant, Mr. Fife, was an officer in the 3d
Dragoons, and Mr. Paxton, who was the son of Sir
J. Paxton, was a brother officer in the same regi-
ment, and there was no doubt that the bill in ques-
tion was drawn fur their mutual accommodation to
raise money, and it was entrusted to Johns, whose
name appeared as the endorser of the bill, in order
that he might discount it, which he undertook to
do. Instead of that, however, he kept the bill, and
nothing was heard of it urstil the present action was
brought against Mr. Fife.
Mr. G. Paxton was then examined—He deposed
that he was formerly an officer in the 3d Dragoons,
and in Sept. last he was with the regiment at Brigh-
ton. The defendant (Mr. Fife) was an officer in the
regiment. About the 25th Sept., Johus, the per-
sou whose name appeared as one of the endorsers of
the bill in question, called upon him at the barracks.
He had never seen him before that time. They had
some conversation about money, and Johns told
him that if he could get the name of another officer
with his own to a bill, he could get it discounted for
him. He afterwards saw Johns at the shop of a cigar
merchant at Brighton, and a bill for 3001. was
cashed by him. This was not the bill that was the
subject of the present action. Another bill for
6001., which was drawn by Mr. Fife and accepted
by witness, was afterwards discounted through the
agency of Johns, and 2001. was paid in money for
it and two race-horses. Witness had the horses
and Mr. Fife had the money. The 300/. bill that
was now the subject of inquiry was given to Johns
to get discounted, and he promised to pay the
money into witness's bankers in London a day or
two afterwards, but he never did so, and he had
never received a farthing on account of the bill;
and the first information he heard relating to it
was from his attorney, who told him that an action
had been commenced against Mr. Fife as the drawer
of the bill to recover the amount. When he found
that he could not obtain the money he applied to
restore him the bill, and he told him it was de-
stroyed, and he was satisfied with this answer.
floss-examined—He had altogether several mo-
ney and racing transactions with Johns, and he won
OW bet of him upon the Great Northern Handicap.
Johns did not find the money for the 6001. bill,
but it was advanced by a person named La Mort.
The horses were the property of La Mert, and they
were still in witness's possession. The 6001. bill
had been paid. Witness had been sued upon one
of his acceptances, but after he had pleaded to the
action it was not proceeded with. He pleaded in-
fancy. He was not yet of age, and he was of
course not of age while these bill transactions were
going on. He might have told the parties he was
of age. Could not say how long he had been in
the habit of accepting bills of exchange for the ac-
commodation of himself and other brother officers.
Ho might have " backed" bills to the amount of
2,000/. or 3,0001. while he was in the army. The
transactions between him and Mr. Fife might have
amounted altogether to about 1,2001. or 1,3001. Mr.
Fife "backed" bills for Lim to the amount of about
1,0001., and he in return " backed" one for him to
the am,mnt of 230/. He had had the same sort of
operat'ons with other officers. In answer to fur-
ther qua tiotn put by Mr. Chane:ers the witness
slid that he might have accepted bills to' the amount
of 3,0001., knowing at the time that he was under
age. He also stated that he had now left the army
about three weeks, and that he had resigned his
Comm ssion for private reasons that had nothing
whatever to do with these transactions.
In re-examination the witno,s said that he was
! now twenty years and six menthe old. It also ap-
peared that Johns kept racehorses, and that they
stied at the same stab!e as the witness's at Insley ;
and he said that ho might have told him upon one
occasien that he was of age. He also said that La
Mert, the person he had mentioned, was a very
curious customer, and he did not know exactly
what he was. (A laugh.) The two horses he re-
ceived as part of the consideration for the 6001. bill
were valued at 3251. to him, but he did not believe
they would fetch more than 1001. or 1201. at the
hammer if they were sold now.
Mr. Douglas Munro Fife, the defendant, was
then examined, ens( he confirmed the evidence
given by Mr. Paxton as to no consideration having
been given for the bill.
In answer to a question put by Mr. Chambers,
he said that when he put his name to the bill he of
course intended to pay it some time or other.
Mr. James then submitted that upon this evi-
dence he had made out a sufficient prima facie case
of fraud to c ill upon the plaintiff to show that he
had given value for the bill.
Mr. Baron Channell said it appeared to hint that
this ought to be done.
Mr. Frederick Weedon, the plaintiff, was ascord-
ingly called. He st eted that he carried on the busi-
ne is of a woollen-draper in Warwick-strut, Gol-
den-square, and he had been in the habit of sup-
ply;ng Mr. Curlewis, one of the endorsers of tee
bill, who was a tailor, with goods, and at the end
of 1856 he was indebted to him more than 7001.
He asked him to give bins some money on account
in the begeining of January, and he h meted him
the b 11 in ques ion, which he pl iced to his account,
and gave him credit for ihe amount. He said that
he hest taken other bills of Curlewis's in the same
way, and he had no knOwledge of any of the cir-
cumstances under which the bill had been origi-,
pally obtained.
This witness was subjected to a very rigid cross-
examinat.on by Mr. E. James, and in the course of
his answers he said that the debt due by Cur-
lewis was comeosel of an o:d balance, from the
Tar 1855, of 2001., and 5001. worth of goods that
he had supplied to him during 1856. He produced
his books to show that the bill had been regularly
entered to Corlewis's credit, and he s i t that there
w.is always a sort of standing balance against bins,
and the bills were handed to him wore intended to
cover that balance. He also stated that when the
bills were dishonoured he made no claim upon
Curlewis, but at once instructed his attorney to
proceed against the defendant, and his attorney, it
api eared, was also the attorney for Curlewis. The
plaintiff also stated that Curlewis had asked him to
bring the present action.
In re-examination the pliiutiff swore positively
that he took the bill in the ordinary course of his
business, and that he gave Curlewis credit for the

amount in the ordinary way.
Mr. E. James, the course of a very able sum-
ming up of the case for the defendant, urged that
the endeavour to show that consideration had been
given for the bill was a mere sham and fudge, and
that the "standing balance" that had been talked
about by Mr. Weedon was got up solely for the pur-
pose of carrying out the fraud that had been prac-
tised upon these young men, and to make it ap-
pear that a genuine debt existed betwaen Curlewis
and the plaiutiff. In all these cases of bill rob-
beries the jury were aware that it was necessary to
fiud out what was called an "innocent holder" for
value to bring the action, and is certainly was an
odd thing that a tailor gen,..raily appeared to be the
unfortunate individual. (A laugh.) He submitted
that in the present case the evidence of the plain-
IX was most utratisfac`ory, and be observed that
if it was true that Ourlewis owed the amount that
had b-en stated to the plaintiff, he might have been
called to prove the fact, but they had not dared to
put him into the witne=s-box.
Mr. Baron Channell, in summing up the case to
the jury, explained to them the law upon the shb-
je .t, and said that the only point for them to con-
sider was whether the plaint ff had made out that
he had given valve for the bill, and that he had
received it in part paynient of a genuine pre-exist-
ing debt.

jury retired, and after being absent for about
an hour, they returned into court and gave a ver-
dict for the defendant.

NORFOLK CIRCIIIT.—BEDFORD, MARCH 17.
(Before Mr. Justice Erle.)
ArtSON AT BIDWILLL.
Edward Finch, aged 19, a farm servant, was in-
dicted for having set fire to the farm buildings of