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.)
AKDREWS V. ROLE.

Mr Sargeent Shoe and Mr. Beasley were counsel for
the plaintiff, and Mr. H. James for the defendant.
This was an action 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 rew, 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 11. 6s. 6d. for her wages, went to
the defendant's shop, and was buying some liver, for
which she gave the defendant's wife ls. The defend-
ant's wife opened a till, took out ls., and put it in ber
mouth. The plaintiff said, "If you doubt the shilling I
gave you I wilt give you another." The defendant's
wife threw down a bad shilling. The plaintiff said that
was not the one she had 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 had shilling be
would let her The plaintiff refused to admit this.
The inspector said he thought she was a respectable
young woman, and'refased to take the charge, which,
however, the defendantAiid not Talass,, The plaintiff
then went home, hut was very unwell' for some dap.,
and not able ti 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
re to reed.
For the defence it was urged that, although the de-
fendant admitted there was not the slightest imputation
against the plaintiff, yet that she had 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 sip, bent it, and said, " That is a bad silling."
The plaintiff said, " That is not the shilling I gave you."
Tho witness said it was. She had not put it in the till.
A gentleman came in at the timepnd put down a shilling.
The plaintiff said, " That ie the shilling I gave you ;"
the gentleman said he. had given that shilling. The
plaintiff said, "Then it is very much like it." The plain-
tiff callsd her a good-for-nothing swindler, and that but-
chers in the New-cut kept had 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 pohc3man 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 oppres4en. On 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 marry who would do such a thing, but it was
generally to be perceived in their countenances.
The jury returned a verdict far the plaintiff—Dam-
ages, 20s.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
BIEEMONDS V. TAYLOR.
Mr. Serjeant Byles and Mr. Addison were counsel
for the plaintiff, Mr. Boviil, 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 pleintdr, 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 relat:ng to draughts
on bankers, 19th and 20th Viet., cap. 25) was o: :o of
great importance to bankers and the puld c, and was
whether where a customer of a bank crosses a cheque,
but before pi eseettnent the crossing has been fraudulently
obliterated by some person, thr,ugh whom it is pre-
sented at. the bask, 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 wawa°
conflict of evidence, were as inflow a :—On the 28th of
August one of the plaintiff's clerks, who conducted a
wise business for his master, by his master's directions
drew the b, dy 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
banked with the London Joint-Stock Bank 14 or 15
yeare, and had al•vays 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. Tho 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 c;erk, signed
it, and cent it to Mr. Lyne, his solicitor. The plaintiff
had paid crossed chocks to Masters 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 door, 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 facient audc2a cum
Kilda fures."
The words, " the finder is much obliged," were writ-
ten ou 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
bad 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. Hebdeo, an engraver, who was called for the
plaintiff, said that, in his opinion, paper of the thickness
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
paper would, instead of obliterating ink marks, fix them.
On cross-examination, the witness said some cheques
were prepared to resist oxalic acid. He did not know
whether this was so prepared or not.
Upon the facts above it was contended for the plaintiff
that the erasure was equivalent to a forgery, and that in
such case the bank was ,liable, that the construction to
be put upon the statute was that the words of the statute
" bears across its face in addition," &e., 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.
The Chief Justice summed up the case with great caret
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 ma e
it obligatory upon a banker to pay a crossed cheque only
NEW BEER BILL.—Mr. Fitzroy, Mr.
inHoweraertdshsy-'ieticeMrosmoz..
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 W. Brown, and Mr. Headlam have drawn up a bill on
by the charges of negligence which had been raised during the sale of beer and cider. It repeals provisrionmade to
the progress of the case. It was a question for the jury under which application is made t
whether the plaintiff or defendant had been guilty of the Excise of licenses forthesa le oof
His Lordship could see no negligence •
negligence. in enacts that all licenses for selling beer by
the plaintiff's conduct. It was a daily occurrence to td l • 1 (modem All li-
neg igtenwceas? gran eony by the justices in specia ,
send checks and drafts through the post, and the bus censes granted within six sno r sabeenpdet.rg:b.l7Bsrt . se::: :i
. .1 will sod
reb .
ness of the country could not go on unless that
In granting
act (thewill
retail shall be
done. Then, were the defendants guilty of r mmeallinceil2an efnortceolontlhyist
Did the use of this particular description ofpaper • • . invite ins, but other licenses
crumpled and folded to prevent the discovery of the the population and
drat) .
the forgery ? The check had been very
premises will be recover-
of liquor by pnblichoneee.
ingeniously licenses the justices must
pthubeeblicans taking
fraud ; but it was a question for the jury to say whether No debt for beer ill the next special session for ncens.
every check presented at a banker's was to be scrutinised able unless sue 0
will be fined 2/. for every pawn. Ibste osiaved.
by holdingit up to the light to see if it beer wi
was crossed, as pawns for
Coffee-
had been suggested. They public refreshment houses ke open at night
were to say wheth t e shops and pu
bank had exercised due and reasonable er h
en 9 min. and 4 a.m.) must beltcensed by two
etyoeshoonwthtehafauciet
hoafditbeaetnthereossed. a
t care in paying 1 (abeettiwceeseat and these houses will be sub-
this check, there being nothing once visible to the ' i
time when it was resented jest
d '
iat hntidnb ecaowgt nl
teureti thedohkelg:olfni:xydnests
police. Keepers
of coffeeshops allowing the use of intoxicating liquors,
The
jury found their verdict
immediately and unani- . • or be
or the presence of thieves and prostitutes,
ll be find 405. 51., and 101. for the first, second, and
mout,ly, that there was no
third offence. Drunkards refusing to quit licensed houses
of the plaintiff or of the defendant. on request will be fined 405., and persons foundguzzling
subject .
forfeit 2Os. for
A. verdict was then entered for the defendant,
ved. beer or llquor at unlawful houses will
to leave to the plaintiff to move on the point reserw
ould every offence. The word " coffeeshop" includes all tea
His lordship, in answer to Mr. Serjeant BYle%
h inter- and coffeeshops, temperance hotels, shell-fish shops,
give no opinion one way or the other as to t I dancing saloons,'
houses, and rooms open for public re.
pr
Oa
of the statute.
ill preside freehment, resort, and entertainment, not licensed. foe
On Wednesday next liir. Justice Wales w
the sale of alcaboli beverages.
in the Second Court.
P
t tyda
sessions stihoken
salUnP tike

AUSTRIAN INSOLENCE AT MANTUA.

The Risorgimento of Turin gives the following
more accurate, and, as regards the fate of the Italian,
le,s terrible, account of the affair recorded in an
exaggerated form in the daily papers of yesterday :
name
ech
fhiss Bianchi
of
"an affair
e the
performances
and
i
Mantua is a most agitated state,_ in consequence
between
n d raeyoung'l in
somge
Austriann,
3tleevnei
evenings
gentleman
onffio,s e
efat
ago
Biain the theatre. An officer desired him in a coarse.
manner to desist, when au altercation ensued,
which ended in a challenge. But M. Bianchi, in
consequence of his being arrested the same °den-
im-, was not able to appear the next morning on
the, ground, to which the Austrian officer had pro-
ceeded. On the following day the latter and '
M. Bianchi met in a coffee-house, when the officer
began to use many insulting expressions to M.
Bianchi, who answered him accordingly. The
officer clapped his hand on the hilt of his sword,
but M. Bianchi did not give him time to draw, for
he knocked him down with p. strong back-handed
blow. The quarrel would have ended here, with
the discomfiture of the Austrian ; but seven other
officers ran up and fell upon M. Bianchi, who, seiz-
ing the sabre of the officer he had prostrated, now
placed himself against the wall and defended him-
self ; bill-, being outnumbered, he would have been
massacred, if persons running up had not hastened
to remove and save him. Die indignant people
rushed in masses to the Austrian barracks, for the
purpose of setting them on fire. It was a long
time before the authorities succeeded, with great
difficulty, in appeasing the popular mind. The
municipal officers of Mantua have . commissioned
two of their colleague.', Count Casten]. and M. Arri-
vabene, to repair to the Emperor, and request that
be will deign at length to put a check upon mili-
tary insolence."

THE ATTEMPTED MURDER, AT REDHILL.

We yesterday gave some particulars of this case. In
our report it was stated that Mr. Ovenden died on Satur-
day of the injuries he received. Happily this is a mis-
take. The following are more detailed particulars of
this terrible occurrence :—On Thursday afternoon last,
soon after 5, Mr. Ovenden, a respectable draper at War-
wick town, was returning home, in his cart, from Mr.
Diver's, Nutfield, where he had been doing some busi-
ness, when about one-third of a mile from the Philan-
thropic Farm School, he saw a man lying partly by the
side of, and partly in, the road, which is very narrow at
the spot. The man was moaning, and appeared to be
ill, and begged of Mr. Ovenden, who had pulled up, to
give him a ride, as he was too ill to walk. Mr. Ovenden
into
the out and assisted the man up, in order to get him
the cart. The moment, however, the fellow was on his
feet he seized Mr. Ovenden by the throat, and pushed
him on the bank by the side of the road ; he then pulled
u
presenteodvteonMdern. 9invsetuindeetnivseblyreasputt,
demanding a
pistol,
lis w h
his band out to push the pistol away, when the fellow
instantly fired. The ball entered the left breast, without
oi money.iwhich
he
mr.
touching any of the great vessels of the neck, and is sup.
posed to have lodged near the shoulder bone. The fel-
low then rifled his pockets of 4/. 10s., and proceeded to
search the cart from behind. Mr. Ovenden, although
badly wounded, sprang from the bank into the cart,
which was close by, and the horse galloped off. Mr.
Ovenden shortly after came up with labourers, one of
whom drove him home. Mr. Peter Martin and Mr.
Holman, surgeons, Reigate, promptly attended, but
were unable to extract the ball. Information was also
sent to Mr. Coward, superintendent of the police at
Reigate, who telegraphed to Godstone, Croydon, and
other '
morning,
places, and with the police then 'COMMen cod a
vigilant search till four o'clock the next •gbt up
to yesterday the ruffian had escaped the haonirndsinoeu
justice.