The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-23 00:00:00

TILE KING V. RIDGWAY.

As the Court was about to rise, Mr. TYNDALL applied to
have this cause come on as a common motion, and not in itx.
place in the Crown paper. The Learned Counsel stated, that
it was a rule Nisi obtained for a new trial, and being had upon
affidavits alone, ought not to have been set down in the Crown
paper.—The Court granted the application.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 22.
DAVIS V. TIIE BANK OF ENGLAND.

Lord Chief Justice DALLAS said, that in this case Horatio
Davis, Esq., was the plaintiff; and the Governor and Company
of the Bank of England were the defendants ; and thedeclaration
stated, that the plaintiff had deposited in his own name in the
public books of the Bank, 10,0001. in the 3 per cents ; that the
defendants had, on the 12th of October, 1819, and on the 16th
of November following, suffered the said stock to be transferred
in two sums of 5,0001. each, from the plaintifF's name in their
public books without his knowledge or authority. The decla-
ration also stated the transfer in the same manner of some small

property of the plaintiff in the 75 per cent. long annuities.—
The damages were laid at 15,0001.
The .Attornits at each side agreed upon the following ad-
missions :—That on the 26th of May, 1819, the plaintiff had
duly purchased and entered in the Bank books. two sums of
5,0001. consolidated Bank Annuities ; that on the sth of July
following, the dividends upon the said stock were duly teceivcd
by hirh.; that he.had received no subsequent dividend from the
Bank ; and that no part of the said sum of 10,0001 3 per cents.
now s cod in his name in the Looks, it having been transferred;
5,0001. on the I2th of October, 1819, by a power of attorney to
Messrs. Drummonds, bearirte; date. the 6th of that month;. and,
on the 16th of November, the remaining 5,0001 was transferred
by a power of attorney to the same banking-house ; that on the
30th September, 1820, theplaintiff demanded of the Bank the
dividends upon the said stock subsequent to the receipt of his
former dividend on the sth of July, 1819, and that the defend-
ants had refused payment thereof. The plaintiff insisted that to
the.. said powers of attorney the signature was a forgery. The
Chief Justice, after this' preliminary statement of the facts of
the case, proceeded to read his notes of the trial at Guildhall, in
which a verdict was given for-the defendants. The first wit-
ness was Lady Davis, and she proved that her name to the at-
testation of the power of attorney was a forgery. It also ap-
peared from the, evidence, that on the 3d of March, 1320, John

the Poultry prison, souse conversation took place 'about the for-
gery on the Bank ; but of the fact she could not speak with cer -
tainty,-nor indeed could any peaticularity have -been expectal
from her Ladyship, owing to her ayitation when the conversa-
tion in the prison was alluded to, and also, indeed,_On the trial.
But, adverting to the-plaintiff's answer to the bill filed by the
Bank, it would be found that he there denied all knowledge of
the forgery, until he obtained information thereof from Messrs.
Marsden at the time he transmitted.. to them the power of at-
torney. There was at-the trial some evidence to show as far
zs this—that in the prison a conversation like the foliowiag
took place between the plaintiff and his brother Colonel Davis
—" You are charged in, a strong 'manner with committing
a forgery : have you done any thing with my property or
any part of it ?"—" Yes, I have," was said to be the answer;
" I have taken 10,0001. Consolidated Annuities, and 75 per
cent. of the long Annuities."—" Then you have indeed 'beg-
gared me," was the reply. There the conversation ended.—
Some letters were also given in evidence, one Of the nth March,
two days after this conversation with the brother in prison,
written by the plaintiff to Messrs. Drunimonds, the object of
producing which was to skew that theplaintilThad then a antiv.,
ledge of the forgery. In the letter were these words :—" By what
has happened my prospects are blasted, and a great par,. of my
fortune irretrievably lost." The objectof this letter was to implere
compassion for hisbrother, who was then in custody. In the answer
of the plaintiff to the inference raised upon this letter, he said that
the expressions referred, not to this forgery on the Bank, but to
certain securities and loans in which he had become involtred for
his brother. The Chief-Justice then stated, that in summing up
the whole case to the Jury, he bad observed; that if there was
a wilful suppression of the knowledge of the forgery for any un-
reasonable time after its discovery, such a suppreSsion wortM
implicate the party making it, either in a knowledge of the for,
fiery at the time, or an acquiescence in it subsequently, so far as
to preclude his right of recovery. The Jury': thoug,ht that the
plaintiff had precluded himself from taking his right, and had
given their verdict against him accordingly. .
During the.present term, the plaintiff had obtained a rule to
shew cause why a new"trial should not be had, on the groubd
that he was taken by surprisein the proof of his receiving, a a
particular time, 1501. from his brother, a circumstance which
greatly influenced the Jury, but which he was now preparrd
satisfactorily to explain away.
Mr. Sergeant BOSANQUET rose to shew cause against this
rule, It was not contended that there was upon general
ciples any reason to find fault with- the verdict; but that the
plaintiff had been at the trial taken by surprise upon wpardcular
fact, which was his having received 1501. on the] lth of Jan.,
by means of a drafrpaid on his account to his Bankers,
Messrs. Cox and Co., by his brother. That fact could cc t
have been inserted in the bill of discovery filed by the Bank,
for he had Mr. Freshfield's affidavit to shew that the defend-
ants did not know it until three days before the trial. The plain-
tiff, it would be recollected, had distinctly denied receiving any
sums of money front his brother directly or indirectly since the
first transfer of the stock had taken place. It being of great
moment to trace any money transactions which happened be-
tween the brothers at that period, it was soon found on investf.-
gation that the plaintiff's declaration was incorrect ; for upen
reference to the bankers of Mr. Horatia Davis, the plaintiff, it
was found that two sums of 801. and 1501. had been paid touts
account by a draft from his brother-1;m the 11th of January: The
moment this fact was ascertained, Mr. Freshfidd gave notice
to the plaintiff' to produce at the trial his bankers pas,l-bOok
between the Ist of October, 1819, and the 10th of July,
1820 ;so that he was clearly apprized heft-ire the trial, tun:
his bankers' account within the period sTecified would be-
come the subject of inquiry; and yet he now canto 6r_
ward and said, that he was taken by.surprise when, at tire
trial, an item in that account was produceA before him ; but in-
dependent of that timely notice, the length 'of-the trial enablcd
him, if he pleased, to have explained the transaction, for he was
in the vicinity of Guildhall at the time. He had, therefore,
quite disentitled himself from Tutting in any claim of surpris,a
His Counsel (Mr. Sergeant Lens) had commented upon 6c
fact at the trial : he had never offered, indeed, to explain away,
as was new attempted, but had submitted that the plaintiff s
brother might have amid in the sum mentioned to his bankers,
without apprizing his brother in any way of the fact. Lady
Davis, who might, if the account were correct, have exp Lined
it, was never asked' upon the subject.

Mr. Serjeant'Oxstow—" You must recollect she was per-
mitted, from her distressing situation, to leave the Court."
Mr. Sergeant PELL admitted that to have been the case, but
still urged that she might easily have been recalled to support
such an explanation about housekeeping accounts as was now
attempted to be put upon the 1501. Besides the 1501. there
was the sum of 801. which had passed from J. H. Davis to his
brother, and which remained altogether uritcuelied upon; and
this, after the latter had distinctly declared he had received no
sums of money from his brother at the Particular- period
when the occurrence took place. He must contend that
there was no ground of surprise in the
.case ; and as to
the general facts, he thought it was clear the plaintiff,
from the conversation with his brother on the sth of March,
had then at least, if not before, known of the forgery ; and it
was equally clear he niade no communication upon the .subject
to the Bank until the September following, when he received
the refusal of the Bank to pay the dividends to Messrs. Mars-
den and Co..npon his power of attorney.
t Here Lord Chief Justice DALLAS read from his notes the
letter written by the plaintiff to Messrs. Marsden, with the
power of attorney to receive his dividends upon the 10,0001. 3 p: r
cents. and assigning at the time his mother Lady Davis's illness
in the country, as the reason he was unable to collie up to town,
and receive the dividends himself.]
Mr. Sergeant BOSANQUET concluded by observing, that he
Should abstain from going further in this case than was abso-
lutely necessary for the purpose of resisting this rule.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY rose at the same side, when Chief-
Justice DALLAS inquired whether his observations were likely
to occupy any length of time, as if so, the late period of the day
would preclude the Court from hearing him.
Mr. Sergeant TADDY replied, that he should not detain the
Court many minutes. He then merely urged that the fact of
surprise upon which the motion for a new trial was grounded,
was quite inconsistent with the whole of the facts disclosed on
the trial.

Mr. Sergeant LAwEs merely repeated the same observation.
The Court then adjourned the further hearing of the rul.2,
and intimated that Mr. Sergeant Lens could be heard in reply
to-morrow.

Last .Tuesday another X 30,000 was sold in
Shares by CARROLL. No. 11,486 was the lucky
Ticket, and the fortunate holders may receive
their Money on demand. 'lbis reminds us that
the very last "30.„000 Consols was sold by CAR.*
ROLL; and it is confidently anticipated that; as
CARROLL is so peculiarly fortunate in sellia;
£30,000 Prizes, that another will also be so;:i
by him, before the close of the present Lottery,
at his fortunate. Offices, 19, CORMULL, and '2(i,
OXFORD•STREET.