The Sun.
London, England, 1827-10-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

VENNING V. WISE AND OTHERS.

This was an action for 6311. ss. 4d., the amount
of a policy of assurance effected on the ship Wood-
burn, from London to the Cape of Good Hope.
Mr. GURNEY stated the case to the Jury. The
defendants were members of the Devon Life and
Fire Insurance Company, which was dissolved sub-
sequent to the date of the policy. That circum-
stance, however, did not destroy the liability of the
defendants, which was not disputed. The facts of
the case were, that the ship Woodburn was pur-
chased by a Mr. Jackson, who had been a Lieutenant
in the Navy, for the purpose of trading between
London and the Cape of Good Hope. The plaintiff
put goods on board to the amount of 6811. ss. 4d. at
the desire of Jackson, but as the.vessel was about
to sail, Jackson was arrested and thrown into prison.
Captain Bevan, a man of great nautical experience,
was then appointed to the command of the vessel,
and sailed from Deptford on the 30th of May, 1826.
The ship arrived in Table Bay on the 2Sth of Aug.
and a small bower anchor was thrown out, on which
she rode at 90 fathoms, for about three hours. A
heavy swell then came on and a second anchor
was thrown out, after which the ship rode for
about a quarter of an hour, when the swell'
increasing, she was driven 031 a lee shore, and went
to pieces in a short time. The principal part of the
cargo was saved. The defence intended to be set
up was, that the vessel was not, sea-worthy at the
period the policy was effected; but the Learned
Counsel contended, that the sea-worthiness of the
vessel Was sufficiently established, by the fact, that
Captain Johnson, to whom she belonged, intended
to take out his wife and family, which was the
strongest proof he could give of his confidence in the
vessel. _ . _

The policy of insurance having been given in
evidence, Captain Bevan was called, and proved
the circumstances preceding and attendant on the
loss of the vessel, nearly as they had been stated
by the Counsel.
•On his cross-examination, the witness swore that
the vessel was not provided with many indispensa-
ble articles. They wanted a cable, another anchor,
log-glasses, candles, and a variety of articles. Many
of these articles were so necessary, that the witness

thought it his duty to put into Falmouth to provide
himself.

The evidence of this witness being conclusive as
to the vessel not being sea-worthy, the plaintiff's
Counsel consented to a nonsuit.

On the next cause being called on, it appeared
tat none of the gentlemen summoned as special
rors were in attendance, and the Court ordered
lat several of them should be fined 10/.

COURT QF COMMON PLEAS.
Before the Loan CHIEF Juvricx and a Special Jury.)

SNOW AND OTHERS V. LELAND AND OTHERS.
Mr. PLATT opened the pleadings. This was an
action brought by the plaint►ffs, who are bankers in
the Strand, to recover the amount of a bank note,
their property, which the defendants_ had converted
to their own use.
Mr. Sergeant BOSANQUET stated the case. In the
month of Sept. 1824, the plaintiffs had sent one of their
most confidential servants named James, into the city
of London, to receive a large sum of money. He had
a cheque for 1001. payable at the bank of Messrs.
Sykes and Co. He received a Bank of England

note to that amount for it, and endorsed the name

of " Sykes" on it, and also the day of the month.—
James, on his return from the city, was hustled in
Fleet-street, and robbed of this particular note.
—Among others, the note came into the
hands of the defendants, who are extensive

bankers at Liverpool. As the law now stood,
ascertained as the rule *was by some recent deci-
sions, the owner of a note, if stolen, did not lose his
title to it, unless the person into whose possession
it came, gave a bona fade consideration for it. The
Jury were, however, bound to see that the
party receiving the note used that degree of
caution, which a prudent man was in the habit
of exercising in the conduct of his business. In
determining that question, the Jury would take into
their consideration the size of the note, and the cir-

cumstances of the person offering it. As soon as
the note in question had been paid into the Bank of
England, about a year after the robbery, and
thence traced to the defendants, the plaintiff's solici-
tor wrote to them requesting that they would furnish
a description of the • person who paid the
note into their banking-house, in order that
exertions might be made to discover and bring
him to justice. One of the defendants answered
this letter, and stated, that they could give no
ac-
count of the party from whom they received it ; that
about the time when it was paid into their bank
they had received several large sums of money
from the Custom-house, and from some mercantile
houses. The defendant, further stated, that they
did not make an entry of all the notes paid in, but
they never took notes, except from persons well
known to them. Formerly they had kept regular
entries; they had lately discontinued the practice,
and were then about to resume it. The Learned

Sergeant did not mean to impute to the defendant a
knowledge of the manner in which the note had been
lost, and he admitted that before the plaintusediffs
ev
e couldevery
recover they must show that they had
reasonable exertion to publish the loss of the note.
Several bill-stickers were then produced to prove
that they had posted up bills, describing the robbery,
and the several notes that had been lost. Adver-
tisements to the same effect were irserted in several
London Papers and in the Hut and Cry, seven co-
pies of which were sent regularly to Liverpool.
The plaintiffs' solicitor produced the letter which
he had: received from one of the defendants, and
said he had accompanied him to the Liverpool
Custom-house, for the purpose of ascertaining whe-
ther the note was paid by any of its officers into
the defendants' bank. He was told at the Custom-
house that they never marked notes, and therefore
could not give any information respecting that par-
ticular note. He was equally unsuccessful in his
enquiries in other quarters.
It was stated that there was, no local circulation in
Mr. Sergeant
Liverpool, and that all their business, was carried on
in Bank of England paper.
ming up, said
wAmpt theE
d eseul suggestion taxi oindolratoeNesfvss
wilihniasges
iLttsihioeeirsnidj_ntsiulitils;eyipida.m,
public by describing the lost pro-
perty.
thaTththeisLraspaCmnoisEtFirnjupsoTritactui; case to the commercial
provided he has taken all pains to publish the
party have
the
v 4
tworld.lue
It would be no defence fOr the party into
whose hands any particular note came, to say that he
d ft
oh
tweo raluronl
se
et of law
misfortuneloss,an
had given valuable consideration for it, unless he
could also show that he had used due caution,
for a man was bound to deal with the interests
of others as he would with his own. Now
if a party receive a note of large size from an un-
known person, without making any inquiry, they
certainly would not be acting with that caution which
prudence dictated towards themselves, and honesty
ought teach them towards others; but in this instance
one of the defendants upon the first application to
him distinctly says, that it was not their practice to
take notes from unknown persons, and at the same
time he mentions several quarters, from some one of
which it was likely that the note came into the de-
fendants' bank. His Lordship, under these cir-
cumstances, left it to the Jury to say, whether the
defendants had or had not used due caution.
The Jury having been deliberating for a consi-
derable tine,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said—Brother Wilde,
if the Jury have any doubts, had not you better ad-
dress them.?
The Learned Sergeant did, after which his Lord-
ship added—" Gentlemen, I can only say, that if the
defendants were not justified in taking this note,
there would be an end to the circulation of bank-

notes.
The Jury then returned a verdict for the de-
fendants.