The Sun.
London, England, 1826-05-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MAT 24.
ssrOw AND OTHERS t?.. ROBINSON.
• Mr. Moonx opened • the pleadings. The declaration charged
the defendant with having conierted to his own use a certain bank
note for 501. the property of the plaintiffs, Messrs. Snow and
Co. Bankers.
M. Sergeant Iloseemnier stated the case. The plaintiffs had
heat in the year 1924, a large' quantity of bank notes, which had
bent stolen from their porter. The note in question was one of
that quantity, and which had come into the hands of the defend-
ant; but the plaintiffs not being divested of their property in the
note, he should be entitled to their verdict. The question had
very recently undergone considerable discussion, and he believed
the law of the case was perfectly clear. The account given by
the defendant was pot such a one as would direst the plaintiffs of
their property-in the note. The defendant was attending Doncrts-
ttr races in the last year, and in the course of receiving his bets,
which were all Hiegel, he took the note in question; but of whom
he could not say. It was well known that hankers and mer-
chants were bound to use caution in the course of their transac-
tions in busliniss, and if they did not, they had to abide the con-
sequences of the law; and here was this gentleman, who goes to
horse-races, rind bets his thouaands, claiming, to be better pro-
tected than those who receive notes in the due course of their
trade, and contending that he is not liable. They would hear
from his Lordship that there was no ground for such a defence,
and they would say whetherehe defendant had used due and pro-
per'caution in taking this note.
There ware several admissions ma do : amongst them that the
note in queetion was the same note; that the defendant kept
cash at Messrs. Bryant's, bankers, Newmarket, to whom he paid
Within a few days, 2,2251., and that the 501. note formed part
of that stern ; that he received the note at Doncaster races, but
that he did not know of whom ; that at those races lie received
and paid notless than 22,0001.
James Allen, a clerk in Metiers. Snow and Co.'s house, proved
that the cheek, in payment of which the Sol. was received, was
sent for payinent to Messrs. Donlan and Co:, by James, a porter,
who had liyed at Messrs. Snow's for near 25 years; that when
he returned he said that he had been hustled' and robbed ; the
note never came to Messrs. Snow and Co. • • . •
Tie. Loan Cutts. Jurrrten.—The case appears to .he ell ad-
mitted, except the illegality stated in the opening. Can you show
that, Brother Botanquet?
31r. Sergeant Bosaxnurr apprehended they were within the
statute of Charles 11., which was not affected by the 13th of
Geo. 11. cap. 19, where matches for 501. were legalized; but
that did not make beta' legal.
Mr. Sergeant WILDR.—The object was to encourage the breed
of horses.
The LORD Cum Junter.—lt was very easy to conceive the
difference between these matches and the bets. All my bets hare
been legal, for I never betted more than half-a-crown.
• I lengthened discussion ensued upon the legal point ; the sta-
tute was referred .to, and also several cases, particularly 2d Camp-
bell, 4SB, wber.e.a bet of four pineal; to'aix upon a race above
501. was held to be legal ; and another. wane, Bd Term Reports,
'7OO. •

Charles Black was called to prove 'the stake for the Doncaster
St. Leger was more than 501.
Mr. Allen re-called, and cross-examined 'by Mr. Sergeant
WILDR.—}I9 hail heard that his principals received one of these
stolen note!, and paid it away again to ,Messrs. Jones, Lloyd, and
Co. ; it wag a SO/. note, but he could not charge his memory
when it was paid. The clerk's name that he heard it from. was
Robert Williams; he had never conversed with any of hie prin-
cipals respecting any such note.
Mr. S.ergeant WILD 2 (with whom was Mr. Crirtx,x) address-
ed the jury for:the defendant. They had several cases of a simi-
lar nature, and the principle upon which those cases had been
decided had undergone, atifit deserved, considerable discussion ; it
was a principle of the greatest importance, and was applicable to
every man who.. might become the holder of a Bank of England
note,. and hie .plient had a right, if he thought fit, to have the
grounds upon which the principle stood reviewed, and bring it
forward as a fat subject for.the gravest consideration.
The LORD Cutter JUSTICL—We will have it settled before we
Part. I shall give, no opinion here to-day ; but after the de-
cision of Lord Kenyon, 1 will here say that that decision is
law.

Mr. Sergeant WiLnu said, there were three causes here now,
and there 'night be three-and-twenty, to abide the decision of
this.

The Loan Ciente. JUSTICE.-.-I shall leave it the jury to say
:whether the plaintiffs used due caution, and to say if the defend-
ant used 'due caution ; if he did, he is entitled to a verdict ; but
then I will give the plaintiffs leave to move to take the opinimr
of the Judges whether the traneaction is illegal or not.
Mr. Sergeant Wianr..—lf his locdsbip left it thus, the jury
would have to say whether-his client had been guilty of any neg-
lect es to the title of the person. of whom he took the note.
There were many engaged in business, who, in the hurry of that
business, were precluded from asking the name and address of
OA 77 one of whom they took a note. The principle was not only
:TO able to men of businese who had their books, their counting-
houses, their pens, their clerks ; but it was applicable to every
man who went out into the world, and had dealings with any
man who bad money in his pocket, Was not such a man to deal
without being first interrogated as to whom he was, or where be
came from? There was no more reason for suspecting a man
with a M. note—there could be no more suspicion attached to
such a man—than there would be to suspect a man who carried
about with him a beg of sovereigns. Indeed in his opinion,
there would be more reason to suspect the latter than the limner.
" Must I say to a man of whom I take a note, lost that twelve
months ago: it was stolen frOm me?' Has he not a right to
say to me, before I can impeach his :title, " Show me that
the man that got it froin stole it from you :if you
are to impeach any title, at least give me some expla-
nation ; ..and if I do make these inquiries, which it appear,'
I am bound,to do, how am Ito know that he tale the truth ?"
The defendant received the note at Doncaster ; the plaintiff milled
upon hitn.to restore it ; he did that which some of the highest chit.
rectercbad done; but because be received it at DOncaster, at the
race-course, he must restore it. He cared not by whom he was
condemned, but liii.would say, that hie client came there to insist
upon his civil rights,. and they were there not to discuss Men's
moral characters, but to give them civil rights, if by law they were
entitled to them. It Wee said, that his client had betted to the
amount 0f20,0001. ; the question wee, may men bet ? He would
'presume they might, and thatithe bete were legal. If the intentiou
of the statute was for the improvement of horses—if there was no
betting, how few horses wculd there be ; how many would there be
in attendance this very day, at no very distant spot from the place
whore they were ? He would take 'it to be legal, and would ask
if a reei-couree , was a place to ask, " Pray, where did you get
that note?" If a parson come under circumstances to excite
suspicion, a note tinghtlo be taken from him of such art amount,
but,he would respectfully submit, and tneintain, if there were no
circumstances of suspicion, there was no caution required. There
was no safety for any one, if he was'to ha told that utter a whole
year, you shall make inqu;ry, adopt a farm, and aecurtain the
truth; the form of Inquiry wee quite nugatory. -On what ground
had he a right to suspect a men at a race-couree, more than at any
other place? Were there nowt but dishonest persons who fro-
pientea► ? The plaintiff says, because you received it
at a raceecourse, you must restore 'it ; not:Weal
there is sane law which says so,, and some negligence on my pint
in not doing whet the law require/ of me. He was not aware that
he had any other fact to grapple with than what belled alluded to.
They were not from the admissions to'conclude that he took it from
a stranger; lib might lava taken, it at Cambridge; could he tell
where he received 501. out of £2,0001. ? There was no single
circumstance that showed that he received from an individual who
ought to have excited his suspicion. If there was no negligence
on the part of his client, he should be entitled to the verdict. He
would adl 'wit:mews to snow the plaintifii received one of the
stoles notes themseves, end paid it away to Mews. Jones, Lloyd,
and Co., without knowing that itavas one of alsent. How little was
their notice to be relied upon,—and upon which they asked fur a
verdict, when this was the case! Was it not possible that if they
could . pass one,' they might have received more, and negotiated
them? If this could be the case, and that they could then call upon
the holder of a Lae Lo .restore it, what a situation were the public
placed in?

The Learned Counsel then called witnesses to prove the fact
/gaud, aid they also proved thit the note so taken and circulated
was marked at the time of taking it.
Mr. Serptitit BOSANCIVET replied, contending that his Learned
Friend bed not alrAkin his caw:.
It was intended to turn the verdict into a special one, but a
Coaiiderable altercation took, place as, to the mode-
The Lane;Cuizr lurrics charged the Jury as he had jag_
rtistsid.

'The Jury found fur t4plaintifif-r-Vainage4, 601.
Mr. Servant WiLDX tendert:4 a bill of exception, that there
wet au. evideow of negligence on the part of the defeldaut to go
to the jay.
Tlwlonn CHIEF Juarnes iaid, that if the bin of ev:eption
via4ll,stx.44.4.fruegjay, he would Wirer seal it, sod the
6646'44 eAto uPla,iudlinSat•

TUX SA MS 11. LADLX/L.

The uittiumatemats of wee aad the rewtJt wve tbt WPC