The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-08 00:00:00

EVENING, MAY 8, 1861,

KEW GARDENS.

On Thursday, the 2d inst., a flagstaff of unrivalled
height and symmetry, made of the Douglass pine
(Abies Douglassii), from Vancouver Island, was
erected on a rising ground in the Aboretum of Kew.
It is the gift of Mr. Edward Stamp, a -gentleman
largely concerned, in connexion with Messrs. Bilbe
and Co., of Nelson Dock, Rotherhithe, in the tim-
ber trade of British Columbia. It is only justice to
Mr. Stamp and Mr. Bilbe to state that this is the
second spar which they have presented. The first
measured 118 feet long, 14 inches in diameter at
the base, and 4 inches across at the summit. It was
the largest pole adapted for a flagstaff that had ever
been known in Europe, and it was sent as a specimen
of the tree in question, smoothed and made ready for
elevation, through the liberality of Mr. Bilbe. Un-
fortunately it sustained two accidents. On its way
up the river it was cut in halves by a steamer, but
taken back by Mr. Bilbe and repaired at his
yard; and, again, in the act of being
erected, a rope gave way and it fell and broke
into six pieces. On this disaster being communi-
cated to Mr. Stamp, he promised, on his return to
Columbia, to replace the loss with a spar of at least
equal size and beauty; and in April of this year
another was deposited by the same gentleman, free
of all charges, in the Royal Gardens. It is of the
same kind of pine, but 41 feet longer—namely, 159
feet—and its diameter is S 2 inches at the base
tapering regularly to 8 inches at the summit. There
are 250 concentric rings, or layers of wood, indi-
cating as many years of growth ; its weight is 3
tons, and it contains 157 square feet of timber. To
rig and elevate this noble object the aid of the Ad-
miralty was sought, and it was immediately granted
by the noble duke who is at the head of that de-
partment of Government. His Grace gave instruc-
tions to Mr. John Isaac, the head mast-maker at
Woolwich, and a sufficient number of sailors and
riggers, and the difficult task has been accomplished
without the smallest accident. Many persons came
to witness the interesting operation of raising so
lofty a pole. The site is on ground about 15 feet
above the level of the park, and at a suitable dia.-
tance from the new " winter garden" now in course
of construction. A cut was made through the side
of the hill to its centre, into which the butt end of
the spar was placed horizontally, and then, by
means of a skilful arrangement of ropes, some being
attached to sheers and others to several adjacent
trees, this prodigious spar was hoisted in a few
hours to a perfectly upright position, when it was
found to be so absolutely straight that a plumb-line
cut precisely through the centre of the butt end
and the cap at the top. Flag-halliards and crose-
trees had already been fitted ; and a star, with re-
flecting facets and points, was affixed to the vane-
staff. Being equal in height to the well-known
Pagoda at Kew, this flagstaff may be seen, far and
wide, and, if less conspicuous, it is far more grace-
ful. The main object in erecting this noble spar
is to illustrate the size, unrivalled beauty, and
utility for naval purposes of the tree which pro-
duces it. The Douglas pine abounds in all parts of
British Columbia, including Vancouver Island, and
has been known for many years in our parks
and museums. A small growing tree may be seen
close to the entrance of the Royal Gardens at some
distance, however, from the flagstaff, which is in
the Arboretum or pleasure-ground. The latter, as-
is generally known, is open to the public from the
Ist of May to the 31st of October, and the Bota-
nic Gardens, with which it communicates, continue
open through the year, Christmas-d;y alone ex-
cepted.

L ATV IA TELLIGENCE.—May 7.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

',Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice Erle,
and Justices Willes, Byles, and Keating.)
HARE V. lIENTY-LIABILITIES OF BANKERS.

This case was argued some time ago, and the
Court now gave judgment.
The Lord Chief Justice said a rule had been
granted in this case to enter a nonsuit or to have a
new trial, and the question was whether the rule
should be made absolute. It was an action against
a banker at Worthing for neglect of duty in not
presenting a cheque for payment within proper
time, and the first count alleged that it was the duty
of the banker to send the cheque by the post of the
day on which it was paid into the bank at Worthing
to the bank upon which it was drawn at Lewes for
presentment ; and the second count alleged that it
was the duty of the defendant to send the cheque
for presentment within a reasonable time. The evi-
dence was that the cheque was paid in to the de-
fendant's bank on the morning of Friday, July 10,
and the defendant sent the cheque by the Friday's
post to his correspondent in London, for presenta-
tion at the country clearing house on the Saturday
to the correspondent of the Lewes bank. Accord-
ingly the cheque was so presented, and it was after-
wards sent by Saturday's post to the bank at Lewes,
where it arrived on the Sunday, practically on the
Monday ; and payment was then refused, there
being no effects, but if it had arrived on the Satur-
day it would have been paid. The plaintiff showed
that for eighteen months the course of business had
been to send country cheques to London in the
way in which this one was sent, but that before the
commencement of the eighteen months the custom
had been to send cheques by the post of the day on
which they were received to the country banks on
which they were drawn, instead of sending them
through the country clearing-house in London. The
judge asked the jury whether the custom had been
as above described prior to the 18 months, and the
jury found in the affirmative. The court under
these circumstances thought that the rule to enter
a nonsuit should be made absolute, The question
was whether there was any duty on the banker to
send the cheque by the post of the day on which he
received it to Lewes ; and the court was of opinion
that there was no such duty. Before the course of
sending country cheques through the clearing-house
was adopted, the court considered that the time
which a banker had a right to stop a cheque was
defined correctly in " Rickwerth v. Ridge." There
the defendant was a banker at Aylesbury, and he
discounted a cheque on Messrs. Smith, Payne, and
Co., of London, on the forenoon of the 13th Janu-
ary, and on the 14th he sent it to his London agents,
Price and Co., for presentment, and they presented
it on the 15th, when it was dishonoured. An action
was thereupon brought to recover the amount paid
in discounting the cheque, and it was held that the
country banker was not bound to send the cheque
up to London until the 14th, and that his agents
in London were not bound to present it until
the 15th. That decision' had been recognised
and acted on and treated as established law in
all cases as between parties to the cheque, and
the court thought that the rule applied not only
as between parties to the cheque but also as be-
tween the banker and his customer, unless circum-
stances existed from which a contractor duty on

the part of the banker could be inferred to present
earlier, or to defer the presentment until a later
period. No such circumstance existed here, and it
was admitted that the usage alleged in the first
count did not exist at the time in question.. The
court, therefore, gave effect to the leave which had
been reserved, by directing the rule to enter a non-
suit to be made absolute.

Rule absolute accordingly.
HARRISON V. NICOLL-ARMSTRONG V. SAME-

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

These were actions agalQdr.liOnald Nicoll, of
Regent-street, to recover damages for false impri•
sonment and malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs
having been in the employ of Mr. Nicoll, Mr. Harri-
son as manager of a department, and Mr. Armstrong
as a foreman. Both plaintiffs had been given in
charge for theft, and they were subsequently tried
and acquitted. The actions were tried before the
Lord Chief Justice, in Middlesex, when the sub-
stantial question raised was whether the defendant
had reasonable and probable cause for suspecting the
plaintiffs, and upon the count for malicious prosecu-
tion his lordship ruled as a matter of law that he
had ; whilst upon the count for false imprisonment
the jury were of a contrary opinion, and they found
verdicts for the plaintiffs, in the first case for £3OO,
and in the second for £lOO. Subsequently rules
were obtained for new trials, upon the ground that
the verdicts were against the evidence; and to-day
cause was shown against these rules being wade

absolute.
Mr. Digby Seymour, Mr. Phear, and gr. Butler
Rigby appeared to show cause; and' gr. Sergeant
Pigott and Mr. Hopwood to support the rule.
The Court PM of opinion that it would be more

PRICE 4D. STAMPED, SD.

satisfactory to have new trials, and the costs would
abide the event.
Rule absolute.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings in Banco—Before the Lord Chief Baron,
and Barons Martin, Channel', and Wilde.)
LAST v. DOWLING-INTERPLEADER.
Mr. Hawkins said he had to move in this case,
which had been tried before Mr. Baron Channel'
on the 24th, 25th, and 26th of April, and in which
the verdict had been found for the plaintiff for a
new trial, or to enter it for-the defendant. It was
an action in interpleader to try the right to certain
goods seized by the Sheriff of Middlesex, and the
interesting point involved in this drams, which had
been performed for three days—(laughter)—was
whether the goods which had been seized by the
sheriff at the suit of Mary Anne Dowling were the
goods of Mr. E. T. Smith or the plaintiff. Mrs.
Dowling, who resided at Barnes Cottage, King's
Langley, in Hertfordshire, had seized the goods
under a judgment against Mr. Smith. Now -his
learned friend, Mr. Chambers, had at the trial made
a great deal of the fact that when the attorney's
clerk went to her house to serve her with a sub-
poena to attend the trial she was lying upon a sofa,
and although she pretended to be ill, she jumped
up, and stamped about the room. But if their
lordships could have only seen the kind of person
the attorney's clerk was—(laughter)--the document
which he carried, and the sum which he put down
with it, they might readily conceive that a lady in
a delicate state of health would be somewhat ex-
cited. (Laughter.) The attorney's clerk had ab-
solutely offered her with the subpoena a sovereign
to come up to London, and to pay her expenses, and
the lady refused to take it. What did the attor-
ney's clerk do then ? He picked up the sovereign,
but left the subpcena. (Laughter,) What became
of the money nobody knew ; it certatnty had not
been produced in court. But really Mrs. Dowling's
evidence was not wanted, because he (Mr. Hawkins)
had offered to admit everything she could prove.
However, his learned friend Mr. Chambers said
"We want Mrs. Dowling." (Laughter.) Now the
history of the plaintiff, Mr. Joseph Wm. Last, was
somewhat peculiar. He was a printer, he had been
bankrupt and insolvent, and had been the proprie-
tor of that respectable publication called the Town,
which had been put an end to by the Society for
the Suppression of Vice. The plaintiff, who was
in the employ of Mr. Francis, the printer, induced
Mr. Smith, who was then, in 1860, the lessee of
Her Majesty's and Drury-lane, and the proprie-
tor of the Alhambra, to take a printing business
in Savoy-street, Strand, on the ground that by so
doing he would effect a great saving in the print,
ing of his theatrical bills, the plaintiff to recive £3
a week as salary. Mr. Smith was responsible for
the plant, but did not wish his name to appear, as
he would not ran the risk of the bankruptcy law?.
The execution had been put in the name of Mrs.
Dowling, and then the plaintiff claimed the goods.
The Lord Chief Baron—You may take a. rule to
show cause.