The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-23 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 22.

',sittings at Nisi Prius, before M. Baron ROLFE and a
Common Jury.)
READING V. ROWORTH.

This was an action on two bills of exchange for the
respective amounts of 16/. Ms. and 5Z ss.
The defendant pleaded that she did not accept.
Mr. Petersdorff appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Piggott for the defendant.
It appeared that the defendant is a very old lady, up-
wards of 80 years of age, and that some two years since
a person of the name of Symonds, the son of the de-
fendant by her first husband, took the bills in question to
the plaintiff to be discounted. This the plaintiff, after
having made inquiries as to the fact of the acceptances
being in the handwriting of the defendant, consented to
do, and eventually handed over the money for them.
The bills, however, on arriving at maturity, were not
duly honoured, and remained unsatisfied down to the
present moment. Hence the action.
A gentleman of the name of Sayer, who was the
managing clerk at a solicitor's in Bedford-row, was
called as a witness to prove the handwriting of the ac-
ceptances to be that of the defendant. He had seen her
sign her name to legal instruments. He entertained not
the least doubt of these acceptances being in her hand-
writing.
Mr. PIGGOTT, on behalf of the defendant, stated that
she was now upwards of eighty years of age, and was
not free from exhibiting the infirmness of a person who
had arrived at that advanced period of existence. That
lady most positively denied that she had ever accepted
these bills.!lt was not a little singular that if the plaintiff
had really entertained an opinion, after their dishonour,
that they had been accepted by her, he should not have
taken any steps upon them for upwards of two years.
But such had been the fact ; and on the part of the lady
he was there that day, not simply to repeat her declara-
tion, but also to prove by evidence—evidence of a far
more satisfactory and conclusive character than that
which had been offered on the other side—that the ac-
ceptance to these two bills was not in her handwriting.
Mr. R. Cooke was then examined.—He stated that
he was a conveyancer, and had known the defendant
for several years. She was eighty years of age, and
wrote a very feeble hand,. a fact he was well acquainted
with, because he received her half-year's dividends,
for which she not only gave him her receipts, but
frequently wrote to him on the subject of them.
These acceptances, he should say, were not written
by the defendant. The writing was very much too
firm and bold for au old lady like her. She wrote her
name, as on the bills, at full length; but then her writing
was distinguished by great tremulousness. IYere he to
receive instructions with such a boldness of signature, he
should not act upon them, because the writing was far
too firm and bold for a woman at her advanced age, and
most certainly for the defendant.
:Cross-examined—Ile did not know were the defendant
lived at present. She usually called or wrote for her
dividends, and therefore, as he had no other transactions
with her, he had no occasion to know where she resided.
Mr. PETERSDORFF—May I ask whether you did not
belong to another branch of the profession than that
which you have now stated? Witness—Yes; I was, and
am. I consider, a member of the bar.
Do you mean to say that you believe yourself to be a
member of the bar now?—Yes, certainly.
Why, have you—l lament at being compelled to put
such a question—have
you not been disbarred ?—Yes, I
have been disbarred, but only by the benchers, and an
appeal has been lodged against the decision of those
gentlemen.
What was it for ?—lt was in reference to a bill which
I had discounted, and the Benchers were of opinion that
too much interest had been taken upon it • but I feel 1
that I have not done so, and that I stand before the