The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-17 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Guildhall, before Mr. Justice
Erie and Common Juries.) •
ANDREWS V. HOLE.

Mr Sergeant Shee and Mr. Beasley were counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr. H. James for the defendant.
This was an aotion for an assault and false imprison.
ment.
It appeared that the plaintiff, a very respectable young
woman, had been. in the employ of Messrs. Edmonds
and Co., bookbinders in Paternoster-row, for 17 years.
The defendant was a butcher in Lower Marsh, West-
minster. On the evening of the 4th of October the plain-
tiff, having received 1/. 6s. 6d. for her wages, went to
the defendant's shop, and was buying some liver, for
which she gave the defendant's wife is. The defend-
ant's wife opened a till, took out is., and put it in her
mouth. The plaintiff said, "If you doubt the shilling I
gave you I will give you another." The defendant's
wife threw down a bad shilling. The plaintiff said that
was not the one she bad given her, as that one was a
new one just come from the Bank, and had on the words
"One Shilling." The defendant's wife said the plaintiff
was a passer of bad money. The defendant then came
in, and said if she did not go about her business he would
fetch a policeman. The plaintiff remonstrated, and the
defendant called a policeman and gave the plaintiff in
charge, and she was taken along a crowded street to the
police-office, where the defendant said if the plaintiff
would admit that she had given his wife a bad shilling he
would let her go. The plaintiff refused to admit this.
The inspector said he thought she was a respectable
young woman, and refused to take the charge, which,
however, the defendant did not press. The plaintiff
then went home, but was very unwell for some days,
and not able to go to her work. The plaintiff some-
times earned 3/. a-week. The plaintiff went to a magis-
trate and asked his advice. He recommended her to go
to an attorney, and a letter was sent asking for an
apology and a return of the shilling, but no answer was
returned.

For the defence it was urged that, although the de-
fendant admitted there was not the slightest imputation
against the plaintiff, yet that she bad unknowingly
passed a bad shilling, and that her abusive language and
improper conduct had led to her being given into cus-
tody.

The defendant's wife stated that the plaintiff put down
a shilling and told her it was a " George shilling." She
took it up, bent it, and said, " That is a bad shilling."
The plaintiff said, "That is not the shilling I gave yon."
The witness said it was. She had not put it in the till.
A gentleman came in at the time and put down a shilling.
The plaintiff said, " That is the shilling I gave yon ;"
the gentleman said he had given that shilling. The
plaintiff said, "Then it is very much like it." The plain-
tiff called her a good-for-nothing swindler, and that but-
chers in the New-cut kept bad money to give in change.
She spoke in a very loud voice. A great many people
collected round the door. The defendant came in and
told the plaintiff she must not make a noise in his shop,
and if she did not go he must send for a policeman. She
said she would have a policeman sent for. Did not tell
the plaintiff that she knew the shilling was a bad one.
The learned Judge summed up the case to the jury.
The plaintiff ought to have an indemnity, not only for
the inconvenience, but the jury were at liberty to take
into consideration the pain and annoyance to her feelings.
On the part of the plaintiff it was said there had been
great oppression. Oa the other side there had been no
misconduct. From the appearance of both these women
no one would suppose that the plaintiff had attempted to
pass a bad shilling, nor would any one believe that the
defendant's wife would have been guilty of that intense
wickedness of substituting a bad shilling for a good one.
There were many who would do such a thing, but it was
generally to be perceived in their countenances.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Dam-
ages, 20s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
SIMMONDS V. TAYLOR.

Mr. Serjeant Byles and Mr. Addison were counsel
for the plaintiff, Mr. Bovill, Q.C., and Mr. Archibald
appeared for the defendant.

This was an action brought against the defendant as
the public officer of the London Joint• Stock Bank by
the plaintiff, who is a customer of the bank, for money
lent and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded
payment.

The question raised by the action (involving the con-
struction to be put on the recent act relating to draughts
on bankers, lUth and 2Uth Yict., cap. 25) was one of
great icnportagto bankers and the public, and was
whether where a customer of a bank crosses a cheque,
but before presentment the crossing has been fraudulently
' obliterated by.. some person, through whom it is pre
Rented at the bank, and it is paid over the counter in
the ordinary course of business, the loss falls upon the
bank or upon the customer.

The facts of the case, in respect of which there was no
conflict of evidence, wen, as follows :—On the 28th of
August one of the plaintiff's clerks, who conducted a
wine business for his master, by his master's directions
drew the body of the cheque in question for 1251., pay-
able to a Mr. Masters. He crossed it with two lines
from each extremity, and wrote on it the words " and
Co." over the word " London." The plaintiff had
blnked with the London Joint-Stock Bank 14 or 15
years, and had always used the same form of check
and sort of paper as that on which this was written.
The forms were supplied to him by the bank, and he had
never applied for any other. The paper was rather thick,
of a stone colour, or, as it was said, dirty-coloured, and
uniformly so. It was not glazed. The plaintiff having
received the check made out as above by his clerk, signed
it, and sent it to Mr. Lytle, his solicitor. The plaintiff
had paid crossed checks to Maters before which had
been paid through a banker. The solicitor received the
check, legibly crossed (he said) in the usual way, wrote a
letter, and told his clerk, after copying the letter, to en-
close it in an envelope with the check in question, and to
be careful that the check was put inside. The clerk did
so, and, according to his directions, posted the envelope
and contents, addressed to " Mr. Masters, 22, Duke-
street, Manchester-square." On the 3d September Mrs.
Long, the landlady at 22, Duke-street, heard a loud
knock at the (bor., and upon opening it took in the en-
velope. It was open. The letter enclosed was there,
but there was no check.

Mr. Sergeant Byles said it was put under the door,
with a grateful acknowledgment—" The finder is much
obliged."
The Chief Justice—" Quid domini facicnt audent cum
talk fures."
The words, "the finder is much obliged," were writ-
ten on the envelope when taken in. The check was pre-
sented at the bank and paid over the counter in the or-
dinary course of business. At that time the crossing
had been obliterated, and it was only by minute inspec-
tion, as by holding up the check before a strong light,
that the traces of the crossing could be discerned.
A Mr. Hebden, an engraver, who was called for the
plaintiff, said that, in his opinion, paper of the thickne.s
and uniform colour of the check was not safe for checks,
but the question being objected to, was withdrawn. The
same witness stated that several bankers used such
paper, but the majority did not. The paper used was
generally thinner, and oxalic acid, applied to coloured
The Chief Justice summed up the case with great care
and said the question of law was one of great interest
and importance. It turned upon the construction of the
statute. It was whether the words of the act which made
it obligatory upon a banker to pay a crossed cheque only
through a banker had reference to the time of the draw-
ing of the cheque, or the time of the presentment at the
bank. That question he would reserve for the opinion of
the Court. The question of construction was complicated
by the charges of negligence which had been raised during
the progress of the ease. It was a question for the jury
paper would, instead of obliterating ink marks, fix them.
On cross-exernination, the witness said some cheques
were prepared to resist oxalic acid. He did not know
whether this was so prepared or not.
Uponthe facts above it was contended for the plaintiff
that the erasure was equivalent to a forgery, and that in
such case the bank was ioliable, that the construction to
be put upon the statute was that the words of the statute
" bears across its face in addition," &a., meant that if a
cheque was crossed at the time of issuing, though the
crossing ;was obliterated before presentment, the bank
was bound to pay it only through a banker ; that the
bank was guilty of negligence in paying this cheque the
crossing of which might have been discovered by a
skilled clerk ; that the bank had facilitated the fraud by
furnishing to the plaintiff cheques upon paper of this de-
scription. For the defendant it was contended that
there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff in so
lightly crossing the cheque that the fraud was rendered
easy, but of this there was no evidence, and that the
statute required the crossing to be apparent at the time
of presentment to the banker.
whether the plaintiff or defendant had been guilty of
negligence. His Lordship could see no negligence in
the plaintiff's conduct. It was a daily occurrence to
send checks and drafts through the post, and the bu •
ness of the country could not go on unless that busis
-
ness
oinde.
the Tuhseen
of, were
this
particularthe
descriptiona nts guilty v
very
. paper negligence winvitea
beentile
discovery of
cthruemfpolregderyaL Tfhoeldecdhetcokprheaeisht
of the
fraud ; but it was a question for the •ury
every check presented at a hanker's jwas to )besasycrwahtientihseedr
by holding it up to the light to see if it was crossed, as
had been suggested. They were to say whether the
thhainskehhaek,
deexercised. due and reasonable care in paying
eye on the face of it at the ti when it
there being nothing e
at once • • leto
n the
m
to show that it lead been crossed. wvaissibpr
The jury found their verdict immediately andeuenatneid-
mously, that there was no negligence on either the part
of the plaintiff or of the defendant.
A. verdict was then entered for the defendant, subject
to leave to the plaintiff to move on the point reserved.
His lordship, in answer to Mr. Serjeant BY
1e would
give no opinion one way or the other as to the
inter-
pretation of the statute.
On Wednesday next Justice wales will
in the Second Court. preside

The following is a report made
by two men
named Lugar, a stoker, and Cddas, a passenger on
board the unfortunate steamer Lyonnais, before
picked them up at sea :
the. French Consul at Rio, at which port they were
landed by the American ship Essex, which had
with Dr. Clarin, the fcm,:c4idcictloocnk
sailors. They were steering awtesloomste distance 4th of November Captain D evauix was in his gig
thce:no:brrnein
agnodf
fivethe
Ittestsheile.
raAftboauntdlllveon'
board sight
Lyonnais, them.nofeeffrom
tlhele
• . he:: I was rejoined by 20 of our
o
mostly sailors. All of them, except focur7amoirlls
i-
ately made an attack on the provlsi irnm-e
ons and wine.
It was in vain that we endeavoured to persuade
them to assist in constructing a new raft ; they
plied that they would die on board the re _ ve-
ssel. For
us, who wished to escape death, we began to con-
struct two, which we sent to the large one. Tho
night came on stormy, and was a dreadful one to
pass. One of the small rafts which we had sent to
the large one, and which had remained attached to
the latter, parted its hawser at 11 o'clock at night,
and went adrift, having on it the chief cook, named
Cayelle ; Romain, first stoker ; and four others.
At that moment the sea was very rough, and every
movement of the vessel gave such a shock to the
large raft, which was fastened to her, that we
thought it would go to pieces. The unfortunate
men who were on it uttered the most piercing
cries, begging that the hawser might be cut and the
raft set adrift before it went to pieces. That we
could not consent to, for if the raft floated away
we thought we should lose all chance of safety.
Alas ! when daylight appeared not a vestige be-
yond the part to which the hawser was attached
was visible. By the side of us our drunken com-
panions were still asleep, with their bodies half
under water. We sought to rouse them up by de-
claring the vessel would soon go to pieces, and that
it was necessary to construct a new raft. One of
them opened his eyes, and, finding that it rained, re-
plied, 'I will not do anything while it rains.' Four
men set to work with me, and at 6 o'clock in the
morning of the sth a last raft was completed and
launched. The water had then reached to a level
with the deck of the vessel, and there was not a
moment to be lost. We got on the raft without
provisions, and almost without clothes, with two
empty barrels, the cabin doors, and some cordage.
The raft was out 30 feet square. I had with me,
besides my present companion, the ship's steward,
the second cook, and a stoker, whose papers are
now in our possession. As to those who remained
in the vessel, to the number of 15, we saw then
take refuge in the forepart as the water rose over
the afterpart. We bad not got to more than four
times the vessel's length from her when she gave a
lurch to starboard, and then suddenly disappeared,
with a noise similar to an explosion of a mine.
There was a smart breeze blowing at the time, and
the sea was very rough. Our raft, formed of
planks suspended on two barrels, had neither oars
nor sails. Throughout the whole of the sth the
weather was squally, with rain, sleet, and snow.
On the 6th there was a wry heavy sea. The raft
gave • a heavy lurch, and the second cook was
washed away. A short time after another man in
despair threw himself into the sea. The steward
twice attempted to follow that example, but we
dragged him on board again. He, however, soon
afterwards disappeared, after a very heavy sea had
washed over us. There now remained only us
two. We had then become very weak from long
fasting, and exposure to the wet and cold. Our
hands and legs had swollen. At eight o'clock in
the morning of the Bth we saw a vessel at about a
cannon's shot distance, but she did not see us, and
continued on her route. At four o'clock in the
afternoon we saw another steering for us, and she
soon came close. We were saved. Some of the
crew of the vessel jumped on our raft • and, finding
that we were too weak to move, had us slung and
hoisted on board. She was the Essex, of Boston,
bound to Rio with a cargo of ice. The captain and
his wife treated us with the greatest kindness, and

we arrived at Rio on the 25tii of December." On
being asked to furnish information as to the

probable fate of the other persons embarked on
board the Lyonnais, the man declared that he bad
seen on the raft Richard and Voison, the two principal
stokers ; Remeur, the coalman ; a young French
girl who had embarked at New York as femme de
chambre to the passengers, and three American
lady passengers Lone a young girl of from 10 to 12

years of age. 'These Women had been picked up
after the loss of one of the boats. The man further

affirmed that he saw on board the vessel during the
last night the two coalmen (Brimot and Louis) and
the first stoker (Remain), Cayolle, the head cook,
and some others.

CANTE MILT RY H A Tit, Westminster-road.
OPEN EVERY EVENING.--The follow-
ing company of Vocalists are engaged for the performance of
elections from all the popular Operas, Madrigals, Charuses,
Glees, Duets, &c., viz.: Miss E. Pearce, Mrs. J. Caulfield,
Miss Brunell, Miss Summers, and Madame Marietta; Mr. J.
Caulfield, Herr F. Jonghmans It. Grover, T. Farrant, S.
Jones, J. Barker, W. Melling. P. Corsi, Senor Antonio M.
de Solla, and E. L. Hime ; Masters Austin, Bennett, and
Corri; Messrs. Sam Collins, E. McAuley, and C. J. Wilkins.
Pianoforte, Mr. Cecil Hicks; harmonium, J. Caulfield, jun.;
director, Mr. J. Caulfield. Commence at Seven o'clock pre-
cisely. Suppers, dze., until twelve o'clock. Mr. C. Morton's
Annual Full Dress Ball will take place on Wednesday, Feb.
18, Gentleman's t;eket, 7s; lady's ditto, ss; double ti cket
(lady and gentleman or two ladies), 10s.

-11.011 WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE:.

THIS DAY—Morn. 44 rain. aft. 6—Evening 4 mla aft. 7
To-31ORBOW—Morn. 27 min. aft. 7—Evening 59 min.aft. 7