The Sun.
London, England, 1828-01-18 00:00:00

. •
I .'• . :' COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
COX V 1101112.01)A ILE.
This Was an action on a bill of exchange for
6,0004 drawn by the defendant and discounted by
• Cox and Co.
Mr. GURNEY stated the case. i L.,
' The bill of exchange was then put in. It ap..
Pealed to have been indorsed over by Mr. Hodges
tc) the present plaintiffs.
The ATTORNEY-G ENERAL, for the' defendants,
"ontendcd, that the bill in question was paid over
l'y Sykes and Co. (by whom it was discounted) to
Nlr. }lodges, as a security for a loan be lied made
to that house during the panic in 1820, and that he
reCtived the present bill on condition that he should
i ~ give up some Exchequer Bills which lie had also re-
! . 'tse, wed from Sykes and Co. He had not given up
~:rle Exchequer Bills, however, until he received an
1 -..."lrlemnity that he should not suffer by so doing,
ha
until Sykes and Co. stopped payment. Not
'laving complied with the condition nn which he
received the bill in question, it was contended that
he could not. legally recover on it.
Mr. Wilkinson, a partner in the house of Sykes
and Co., stated hat the bill now produced was
made payable At their house, and was discounted bi
them, and the amount carried to the credit of Messrs.
1 , torrodaile. Mr. Hodges was a stock-broker,- anu
Was in the habit of accommodatiug --Sylies and Co.
With loans, for which he had securitie6 of various
kinds. There
was a run on the house on the 13th
of December, and on that day Mr. Hodges paid in
' 4,820/.; but a sum of 9,6791. was drawn out.
Messrs. 'Borrodaile had an account with Sykes
arid Co., And the balance of their cash account was
4,4591.. • The amount of the bill in question would
have been debited to them, but for the misfortunes
of the house, which' obliged them to negociate it. It
i ;'as handed over to Mr. Hodges, as a security. He
had previously had securities for his adVances. He
had Exchequer Bills to the amount of 5,000/., and
a previous bond. He received the bill in question
~%"? condition that he should give up the Exchequer
'llk Hodges agreed to return Sykes and Co. the
other securities when be drew for money. Subse-
quently he said the Exchequer Bills were not in his
Puss •
ession.
Mr. Desborough, the solicitor of Sykes and Co.,
stated that he was sent by Mr. Wilkinson to" Mr.
N°dges to get back certain Exchequer Bills which
eto in'his possession. Mr. Hodges said the bills
were inn the hands of 'another person, but that he
"aOught it was better to wait until assignees were
kPPointed.. He subsequently said he was advised
I'm to give up the bills. Sykes and Co. stopped ,
payment on the 14th of Deceniber, and some days
atter witness received the Exchequer Bills.
Mr. Hutchins stated that he received the Exche-
Pef Bills from Mr. Hodges, Upon giving him a
bond of indemnity. -
Some other witnesses were called to prove an act
.1)! bainkruptcy, by Mr. Wilkinson, on the 14th of
"ecember, a fact subsequently admitted.
At this stage of the case, a consultation took
4,Phlee between the Counsel on both sides, and it was
",nally agreed that a verdict should be taken for the
Plaintiff subject to a reference.
Lord TENTERDEN, after looking at the conditions
affraed th'by Counsel, observed, that the parties had
acted wisely as respected themselves, and properly
ai res*tkl each other. "

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Chief justice BEST sat this day in the Common
Nis, We regretted, however, to perceive that his
-Lordship seemed extremely debilitated, from the ef-
reqs of his protracted illness. A short-hand writer
sat on the bench with his Lordship, to save him the
labour of taking notes of the evidence.