The Sun.
London, England, 1826-10-28 00:00:00

SAVAGII V. RICH,

This was an action to recover the value of a Bill of Ex-
change for 10001.
Mr. SRROEANT BOSANQUET stated the ease.—lt was an
action brought by the plaintiff; an extensive corn-factor,
against the defendant, Sir Charles H. Rich, Bart., to
recover the value of a Bill of Exchange for 10001. accepted
by him. The plaintiff was formerly in partnership with a
gentleman named Boggis; the bill in question was drawn
in March 1823, to run 36 months from the date thereof.
The bill consequently became due in March 1826; it had
been placed in the hands of the plaintiff, as a collateral
security. He understood that it would be said that the
bill had been obtained from the defendant, under circum-
stances attended with fraud, if that was the case, the fraud
was utterly unknown to the plaintiff. The house of
Savage and Co., was intimately acquainted with the house
of Hobson and Marshall, and there were very extensive
dealings between them in 1824. There was a balance of
between. 2001. or 300/. between them in favour of the
plaintiff. Messrs. Hobson and Co., requested the plaintiff
to give the acceptance of his firm in lieu of some bills
drawn on Miers and Hozard, and agreed to place the bill
in question in their liands, as a collateral security for the
'payment of the other bills; both the firms had since failed,
and the bills were dishonoured, consequently they were
entitled to the bill accepted by the defendant. He should
prove in evidence, that the defendant had notice on the
11th of May, 1824, of the bill being in the plaintiff's
hands, and certainly if the bill► had been obtained surrep-
titiously from him, he thought the plaintiff ought to have
been made acquainted with the circumstance.
Evidence was called to prove the defendant's acceptance
to the bill.

Stephen Hobson, partner in the late firm of Hobson
and Marshall, deposed to the circumstance of placing the
acceptance of Sir Charles Rich into the hands of the plain-
tiff; witness told plaintiff that Sir Charles Rich's accept-
ance was perfectly good ; the bill was to be returned on
the other bills being taken Up ; witness received the bill
from the house of Miers and Co., with three others of the
same date, accepted'by the defendant for 1,0001, each, and
payable at three, four, and five years after date ; witness
cannot recollect ever informing the plaintiff that there was
any dispute about the bills.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant WYLDR—Witness re-
ceived a communication from ,Sir Charles Winter in No-
vember, 1824, stating that the bills were obtained by
fraud ; witness still 'believed that the defendant's accept-
ance was good in NoveMber, 1825 ; witness said there
was always a balance of several thousand pounds in favour
of the plaintiff in the account between him and witness;
the books have been posted since the failure of witness's firm.

The Loan CHIRP JUSTICE said, this was a most infa-
anon* transaction : he hoped Beare had never before or
since engaged in such transactions; adding, " But I be-
lieve the pillory has been abolished."
Beare Said, he had not gained, but lost by these transac-
tions. The defendant had accepted eight only of these bills,
and disposed of them with Rowe, but afterwards sent to
get them returned, as he hail received nothing for them.
Rowe, however, made various excuses., and the bills
were finally put in against the defendant.
It then appeared that they had passed through the
house of Hobson and Marshall, and had come into the
hands of Messrs. Boggis and Savage. Before this action
was commenced, Hobson and Marshall failed, and a diso-
lotion of partnershtp had taken place between Messrs.
Boggis and Savage. The bill was endorsed by the firm
to Mr. Savage, who now' claimed to recover on it.
It was contended for the defendant, that, under these
circumstances, the bill had been obtained in a fraudulent
manner, and that Hobson and Marshall ought to have
known the facts; and that, if the plaintiff, or the house of
which he had been a partner, did not know the same, yet
they should not have taken a bill to such an amount with-
out some inquiry into the manner in which it had been

given.
Mr. Sergeant BosANQUET, in reply, said, that his clien
and his client's house had, until this time, been ignoran
of the manner in which the bill had been drawn up. As
to the law, he did not think the plaintiff was bound to
make inquiry into the nature of a bill which his house had
taken in the way of business.
The Loan JUSTICE said, the first question the
jury bad to decide was, whether on the books of the plain-
tiff there appeared to be any consideration given for the
bilk If they thought not, their verdict would be for the
defcadant ; if otherwise, it must be for the plaintiff.
The Jury consulted for a short time, and returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, for the full amount claimed.