The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-16 00:00:00

LEVY V. BULKELEY.

Mr. Hawkins conducted the case fir the plaintiff,
one of the sheriffs' officers of the Sheriff of Middlesex;
and Mr. Bovill, with Mr. Gisburne, appeared for the
defendant.
This was an action on a bill of exchange at four
months' date for 1351, drawn by the plaintiff and ac-
cepted by the defendant.
The defendant pleaded never "indebted," and he
had also put a plea cf infancy upon record at the time
of the acceptance.
Mr. flawiuNs said that the plaintiff was well
known, not only as a wine merchant, but as being one
of the officers of the Sheriff of Middlesex, whilst the
defendant had been a lieutenant in the army, and was
the son of Mr. John Jesse Bulkeley, of Lyndon-
hill, near Maidenhead, a gentleman of considerable
property. It appeared that in the month of
February in the last year, the defendant had
made an application to the plaintiff for pecuniary
assistance, when he having represented himself to be
25 or 26 years of age, the plaintiff consented to
make the advance of the sum he was in want of,
for which the defendant accepted the bill in question
—namely, for 135/., at four months' date. Now, it
must be distinctly understood by the jury that the li
plaintiff would not only not have made the required
advance, but he would not have taken the bill had he
known that the statement of the defendant as to his
age had not been correct. However, upon the faith
of that assurance the money was advanced and the
bill taken. Nothing more was heard of the matter
until the:arrival of the bill at maturity. It was dis-
honoured, and shortly after the plaintiff, having heard
that the defendant was about to quit the country,
adopted the necessary steps to prevent that intention
from being carried out. This action was then com-
menced upon the bill, and then, and not until then,
had he had the slightest reason to suppose that the
defendant had not come of age at the time he had
borrowed the money; for when the professional ad-
viser of that gentleman had pleaded, he found that
one plea was that of infancy. Now, if his Learned
Friend, who appeared on behalf of the defendant,
should succeed in establishing that plea of infancy, he
,could by so doing convict his client of about as gross
a fraud as had ever been committed. IF, therefore,
that plea should be made out to the satisfaction of
the jury, and they should thereon return a verdict
for the defendant, the plaintiff would in that case be
compelled to adopt another course for the , reco-
very of his money. The Learned Counsel then
called—

David Lawrence Levy, who said that he was con-
versant with the handwriting of the defendant, and
that the acceptance on this bill of exchange was writ-
ten by that gentleman.
Cross-examined—l am an articled clerk to an
attorney, a son of the plaintiff, Mr. E. Levy, in
Adam-street, A lelphi. I saw the defendant accept
this bill at my father's house. lam also a son of the
plaintiff, and I was present when the acceptance was
made. I took notice of the writing at the time as the
defendant signed it. My father's house is in Norfolk-
street, in the Strand, and he is one of the officers of
the Sheriff of Middlesex. The bill has never been in
the hands of a person named Gadderer, a bill dis-
counter ; it has never been in his possession that I
know of, nor do I know that the bill was ever passed
to or from him. I never heard my father say that
Gadderer was a friend of his in particular. Ido not
know that my father and Gadderer have been con-
cerned in bill transactions. Ido not know any such
thing from my father. Ido not know that the father
of the defendant has offered to pay every sixpence
that was due, nor have I heard Mr. Bloxam, the at-
torney for the defendant, make an offer to pay every
sixpence that could be proved to have been lent to the
defendant.

By the CouaT—My father asked the defendant
whether he was of age at the time of the acceptance,
and his reply was that he was 25 or 26.
By Me. BoveLe—My father, myself, one of my
brothers, and Gedderer were present on the occasion.
This is my first appearance as a witness in a bill matter.
This having concluded the case for the plaintiff,
Mr. BOvILL addressed the jury on behalf of the de-
fendant. The only question they would have to
decide was whether at the time of the acceptance of
this bill the defendant, Lieutenant Bulkeley, was of
age. It would not be necessary that he should enter
into any detail or proof of the efforts and the offers
which had been made by the father of this young
gentleman with a view to settle this matter, but as in-
sinuations had been thrown out by his Learned Friend
as to the dishonesty of the defendant, he should feel it
necessary, in maintenance of the character and high
reputation of the defendant, his father, and the soli-
citors to the family, to give some proof of the offers
which Air. Bloxatn had made, on their behalf, to 1,,y
every sixpence which had been advanced upon the bill
by the plaintiff, as well as all expenses which had been
incurred upon it.
Mr. Byron ROLFE said that that question could not
arise upon their pleadings. Upon the pleas there
were two questions only—Did the defendant accept
the bill ? And then, if 3 was he, when the accep-
tance was mane, under the age of 21 ? Whether the
father had offered to pay, and what amount, cool! not
now be inquired into. He would here ask the witness
if he knew whether or not this was a renewal bill ?
D. L. Levy was not aware that it was.
Mr. BOYILL must of course bow to the decision of
his Lordship, but he had been anxious to show that
offers had been made to pay all the money that had
been advanced to this young man, as well as any ex-
peryse3 which had been incurred Every one in court,
however, knew what happened when a young officer,
Jae the defendant, once got into the bands of the
bill discounters, especially, too, when he unfortu-
nately fell into the hands of a sheriff's officer bill
discounter, as had been the case in the present
instance. Here this young man had gone into
the office of the plaintiff; where he was to put
his name to a bill of exchange, and therefore
there had been a gathering of the family, together
with the addition of Mr. Gadderer—an individual
who had earned for himself no small celebrity in the
annals of bill discounting. All these parties were
present to watch this young man affix his name to
this bill. Now, it was a well ascertained fact, that
no man who raised money in this manner had ever
received anything like the full value of the bill which
he night be led on by parties of this description to
accept. But whatever sum he might receive they
always contrived to have some one or two persons
present on the occasion, who, in the event of the
matter ultimately finding its way into a court of law,
were ready to come forward and swear as to the
full value having been given. Sc, in this instance, in
addition to the plaintiff, there had been two of his
sons and Usdderer in attendance. It had been proved
in all former cases of this description, that persons
like the plaintiff al ways took the gre,test care, that
they never transacted these sort of dealings without
having some one or more present at the time, who
might, if the necessity arose on a future day, he
made available as proofs that all the money to the full
amount of the bill had been advanced. The state-
ment of the witness for the plaintiff was that the de-
endant had stated his age to be 25 or 26. Now, he
would prove that at that time he was not of age—he
was not 21. But he altogether denied that ;the de-
fendant had ever made the assertion which was im-
puted to him in respect of his age. Tne two wit-
nesses whom he should call would at once satisfy the
jury that the defendant was under age at the period
of the acceptance of this bill, and having done that he
should with confidence look for their verdict.
Sarah Matthews, who said that she had been in the
service of the defendant's family ever since some time
prior to his birth, proved that he was born on the sth
of May, 1828.

Crosi-examined—She well knew the day of the
birth of all the children, for it had been the custom
of the family to give her a present on each of their
birthdays.

Re-examined—She knew the ages of all the chil-
dren just as well as though they had been her own.
Mr. Baron ROLFE—Don't you hear, Mr. Bovill,
that it is powerfully marked upon her mind by the
presents on each occasion of the birthdays?
John Jesse Bulkeley, the father of the defendant,
also proved that by the day of his birth he was under
age when the bill was accepted. Tne defendant had
originally gone into the Ist Royals, but afterwards he
had exchanged into the 65th.
Cross-examitied —The defendant was now on his
voyage to New Zealand. The dt Pendant had told
him that he had fallen into diffieultks when in Ire-
land.

Mr. TlALwxtris replied.
Mr. Baron RoLra told the jury that if they were
satisfied that the defendant was under age when he
had accepted this bill they must return a verdict in
his favour.

The jury, having consulted for a few minutes,
found for the defendant.

ADMIRALTY COURT, Jun. 15.
(Before Dr. LIJSIIINOTON.)
JUDGMENT.—THE OSMANLI.
Dr. LusniNGroN gave judgment in this case, which
had on a form,r occasion been argw-A heron the
Court. The Learned Judge explained that the ac-
non- was brotight by parties who hell a bottomry
bond upon the Osmanli, which vessel ran between
Liverpool and the Levant, in conjunction with two
other vessel., under the name of the Levant Com-
pany. The bond was disputed by a party who held
a mortgage for 9991. 10s. at 7 per cent., given by the
captain of the Osmanli, when the vessel arrived, and
- was arrested at., Malta by Messrs. Robinson, Duck-
orth, land the agents of the company, who
craimid-as creditors on this and the two other vessels
for advances and supplies made on this and Firmer
voyages. He (the Learned Judge) considered this

W 33 a case peculiar in all its circumstances, and the
first of the kind that had appeared before this Court.
The ship the Osmanli was the property of Messrs.
M'Gregor and Co., and the larger portion had been
mortgaged by Messrs. M'Gregor and Co., to
whom Messrs. Robinson, Duckworth, and Co., of
Malta acted as agents, and who had made advances on
account of Messrs. M'Gregor and Co.'s vessels trading
to the Levant. Messrs. Robinson, Duckworth, and
Co. having been informed of the bankruptcy of
M'Gregor and Co., arrested the vessel, when a Mr.
Messina agreed to advance the sum for which the
vessel was arrested, to release her from detention, and
to suffer her to proceed on her voyage, and the master
of the Osmanli then gave a bottomry bond for the
claim made upon her, on account of advances to this
and the other two vessels belonging to the same firm,
on this and former voyages. It bad been stated that
the arrest, according to the law of Malta, was legal ;
but this Court was now called upon to disallow cer-
tain charges in the accounts, before deciding on the
validity of the bond. This was a novel request, as if
the bond had been declared by the Court to be in-
vali,l, the other questions would be at once decided ; in
fact the only question the Court had now to entertain
was the validity of the bond. If the Court decided
in favour of the validity of the bond, then the other
question would be referred to the Registry cf Mer-
chants. The first fact was admitted that the amount
was due on account of these vessels
.for previous ad-
vances, with the exception of 1501. to Messrs. Robin-
son, Duckworth, and Company. The second ques-
tion was whether the ship was arrested by a competent
court. Of this fact he (the Learned Judge) had not
sufficient evidence before him to satisfy his mind that
the case had been properly brought before the court
at Malta, but the Court had been told that the arrest
was legal. Thirdly, it had been admitted that the
money had been advanced by a Mr. Messina, a mer-
chant and banker at Malta, for the purpose of releas-
ing the ship, which had been arrested at the instance
of a third party, and not Messrs. Robinson, Duck-
worth, and Co., though there had been some previous
communication between them on the question. In re-
ferring to the facts deposed to in the affidavits, they
did not differ very much from the evidence before the
Court, which drew the following conclusion, that the
Osmanli was arrested by Messrs. Robinson, Duck-
wortb, and Co., on account of debts due from the
owners of this and other vessels, 1501. of which had
been incurred by her on this voyage, but by the law
of Malta it was stated the agents could arrest.the
vessels for sums due for previous voyages, and for
other vessels belonging to the same owners. All the
circumstances could not be known by the Court,
though they were known by Mr. Messina, who was
aware that the ship was arrested by Messrs. Robin-
son, Duckworth, and Co., but it was said he was
ignorant of the vessel being mortgaged, though he
could not be released from ir, as it might have been
indorsed, and he might have informed himself of it.
The fourth question, whether Messrs. Robinson,
Duckworth, and Co., applied to Mr. Messina directly,
or through an agency, to take up the bottomry bond,
was of no great importance. Fifthly, could moral
fault be imputable to any party in this case? If the law
of Malta gave this privilege to the parties, he (the
Learned Judge) saw no reason why a merchant should
not avail himself of it. He had paid full attention to
the case, and would now proceed to the legal point.
He (the Learned Judge) would look at it as if no
mortgage, or bankruptcy, and no arrest had taken
place, but at once go to the validity of the bottomry
bond. It was against law for a master to give such
a bond for things supplied to other ships ; the next
and a most important question was, whether the
master was justified in executing such a bond on ac-
count of former debts, to release the vessel ? What
would be the consequence if it were negatived ?
Suppose a vessel to have a valuable cargo which
became injured by being detained, the owner of the
vessel would be liable for the loss, for not having pro-
vided the means for the payment of all claims upon the
vessel. It is said,that by the law of Malta the shipowner
is liable for all debts due previously, as well as those
immediately incurred, and the vessel may be arrested
for then,. If such a doctrine held good here, it would
lead to much inconvenience and frequent arrests in
foreign parts, and not to the benefit of the merchants
in this large trading country If a valid bond could
be given for the ship and freight it could also be given
a the cargo, and thus the vessel and cargo might be
detained, and the merchant would be held responsible
for the debts of the shipower, whatever the amount
and whatever the time. Indeed, the owner of the
cargo would have no remedy unless the owner of the
ship was solvent. If he (the Learned Judge) decided
in favour of the validity of the bond, he would be
doing a great injury to the merchants, beyond any
that might arise by the detaining of the ship and
cargo. A bottomry bond may be granted for the
costs incurred for repairing a vessel on its voyage,
but it can never be arrested for old debts. The
Learned Judge then referred to the case of the
prince (rooms, which had been decided by the
Privy Council, in favour of a bond given for debts in-
curred on a ship's voyage, but never on former debts.
In the case of the, Augusta, Lord Stowel had given
a similar decision. Every book of authority, said the
Learned Judge, is opposed to this doctrine, and he
accorded with their views. I therefore think this
bond cannot be supported. There were supplies on
this occasion for the Osmanli to the amount of 1501.,
but these were furnished after the bond was given,
and also with the knowledge of the bankruptcy of
the owner. When the captain applied to be supplied
with coals, Messrs. Robinson, Duckworth, and Co.
said they should be sent in two hours ; in the interim
they had the ship arrested, and the master after this
consented to give a bottomry bond, before the supplies
were put on board. He (the Learned Judge) thought
these supplies were subject to bottomry, and
would pronounce for the validity of the bond to that
extent, but he did not approve of a bond being granted
for a large amount—say 2,000/., when only 2001.
could be recovered upon it. lie should not decide in
favour of such a bond, where so small a sum was due,
as it would open a field for much litigation. He
would not touch upon the question of the bankruptcy,
but leave it to another court, which had better means
to form a judgment on the question. With regard to
the costs, it would have been better for the parties to
have admitted the validity of the bond for 150/., being
the legal sum that could be claimed. lie would
grant the validi'y of the bond to that extent, and as
to the question of costs, all incurred after the 7th of
March.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY; Jan. 15.
(Thfore M. Commissioner HOLROYD.)

THE MERCHANT TRADERS' 8111 P, LOAN, AND IN.

SURANCE COMPANY.

Tc-day was fixed for the meeting for proof of debts
in the matter of this bankruptcy.
A proof being tendered for 1171.,
Mr. PEARCE, the solicitor to the assignees, ob-
jected to its being admitted, upon the ground that the
policy was without either seal or date, but it appear-
ing that it had been signed by two directors, the ob-
jection was overruled.
Another proof was objected to upon the ground
that the policy had not been signed by two directors,
but by a clerk named Carter.

His" HONOUR held that it was for the party tender-
ing the proof, to show that Carter was authorised to
sign policies. In the absence of that evidence the
proof must be rejected.
In another case a question arose as to whether a
policy for 8001. should be subjected to a deduction of
one-third, according to a custom at Lloyd'f, the
ship having gone only one voyage. The custom was
not established, and the proof was admitted for the
full amount.

Debts to the amount of 11,790/. were proved
during the day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Mr. William Consett Wright,—Of Ratcliffe-wharf,
Ratcliffe-cross, was summoned at the instance of
lir. George Alexander Knott, one of the City in-
spectors of weights and measures, for delivering four
tons of coals on the 3d instant, without having a
perfect weighing-machine, required by Act of Par-
liament.

A Mr. Fearnley attended for the defence.
William Turner, assistant-inspector of weights and
measures, said that about one o'clock on Thursday,
January 3d, he was passing along Milton-street, in
company with Mr. Knott, when they observed some
men delivering coals at Messrs. Gibbs and Co.'s, pro-
prietors cf the City soap-factory, but could see no
apparatus for weighing. Mr. Knott said to the men,
" Where is your weighing-machine ?" To which they
replied, "We weigh them inside." Ile and the in-
spector then went over the premises, but saw no ma-
chine, and on observing to the men that they had not
one with the waggon, one of them confessed they had
not brought one, for if the firm wanted them weighed
it was always done by their own beam, at the same
time pointing to a pair of scales in the soap-factory.
The inspector then asked the clerk in the counting-
house for the ticket, which was given to him, and was
the one now produced.
By Mr. Fe
saw none cf the coals
nle
ar
weighed, although I went into the factory as far as
they were shooting them.
Nathaniel Ward said he was carman to Mr.
Wrigh', and drove a load of coals to the scap-factory
on the day in question, from ltatcliffc-cross, and that
he had no weighing-machine, nor any weights.
Alderman CARDEN—Is that often the case ? 'Wit-
ness—Not often. They are always weighed at the
soap-factory.
Alderman CARDEN__Did you weigh all the sacks ?
Witness—They were not all weighed. There were
four tons of coals in 40 sacks altogether.
Mr. F..arnley—lt was purely accidental that the
machine was not under the waggor.
Alderman CARDEN—The law only looks at the
fact.

Mr. Fearnley contended that the summons was
informal, 118 it did not atate, as required, by 1

and 2 Wm. 4, cap. 76, sec. 52, the name of the barge,
lighter, or vessel it bad been taken from. Besides,
there were other objections.
The Chief Clerk reminded Mr. Fearnley that the
Attorney-General's Act, which came into operation
last year, had altered the laws in many respects, and
prescribed certain forms to be followed, which had
been done in the present instance, and therefore there
was an end to the objections. Besides, Ward proved
that the coals came from Ratcliffe-wharf.
Alderman CARDEN said there evidently had been
an infringement of the law, for the proof was clear
that the waggon went *tit without any machine.
Mr. Fearnley would not deny but such was the
case, still there was no intention on the part of his
client to defraud or give light weight to any one. It
had been the practice for a long time for the coals to
be weighed in the soap-house, and Mr. Wright had
often sent the waggons full without a machine, not
thinking there was anything wrong. Under those cir-
cumstances he hoped the Alderman would think the
smallest fine sufficient to meet a slight indiscretion of
this nature.
Alderman CARDEN said he did not intend to im-
pute, for a moment, that Mr. Wright intended to
cheat any one, but still, supposing that they were
going elsewhere, an opportunity might be taken of
lightening the sack?, and if it was asked that they
should be weighed, the excuse would be that there
was no machine. The Act of Parliament was a most
important one for the protection of the public, and as
the fact had been clearly proved, he should inflict the
mitigated penalty of 40s. and costs.
Mr. Green, the seller, was also summoned for send-
ing the coals in a cart or waggon that had not the
weighing-machine, according to the Act of Parlia-
ment.
Mr. Fearnley said, the evidence being the same in
this as the last case, he should plead guilty, but
hoped that the penalty would be mitigated still further,
as although Mr. Green had been summoned, what-
ever penalty was inflicted would fall upon Mr.
Wright's shoulders.
Alderman CARDEN thought the infliction of ss. and
costs would meet the further justice of the case.
Both fines were paid.
James Neal and Nathaniel Rolles, of Old Jamaica-
wharf, Upper Ground-street, were summoned at the
instance of Mr. John Harvard, another inspector of
weights and measures for the City, for a similar
offence.
A Mr. Cramp, one of the firm, pleaded guilty, but
in extenuation said that when the purchaser bought
the coals he said that he wanted them directly, and
as they had no waggon at home with a machine, he
borrowed a cart in which coke was sent out. Had
it not been for the urgency of the case the cart would
not have gone out without a machine, although it
was seldom coke-carts carried them.
Mr. Knott observed that there were four half-cwts.
under the cart, although no machine. There were
now at this period of the year so many violating the
law, that he was obliged to watch them very closely,
and in every instance he would summon the parties.
Alderman CARDEN said he was perfectly right in
doing so. In this instance he should only inflict a
fine of 20s. and costs, but coal-merchants and carmen
must recollect they were liable to a penalty of 101.,
which would assuredly be inflicted.
The fine was paid.