The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-19 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER_Feb. 18.

(Sittings at Guildhall before Lord Abingecand a Special Jury.)
THE GOVERNOR AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND V. TOM-

=INS.-EXCHEQUER DILL FRAUD.

This case, which from its supposed connection with the fraud
in the issuing of Exchequer bills, appeared to have excited more
than ordinary interest in the City, was entered upon at the sittings
of the Court.
The Attorney 'General, with Mr. Krni and Sir. John Bailey,
appeared for the Bank, and Mr.. Erie aird Mr. Tomlinson for the
defendant.
The ATTORNEY:GENERAL in stating the plaintiff's case observed,
that the present case, though it might be sought to confound it
with the claims of innocent holders of forged Exchequer bills on
the Government of the country, had really nothing to do with that
question. It was unfortunately notorious that one of the clerks
in the office of the Comptroller of the Exchequer (Mr. Beaumont
Smith), who was now suffering punishment for his offence, had vio-
lated the trust reposed in him, and was a party in issuing a number
of spurious Exchequer bills, of which those which formed the foun.
dation of the present action formed a part. That some portion of
the fraudulent issue of Exchequer bills had found their way into
the hands of innocent holders he did not doubt, and how those
holders were to he dealt with it was for the Government, or per-
haps the Legisla'ure, to determine. The present case, however,
was not between the innocent holders of Exchequer bills and the
Government, but between the Bank of England and a party who had
deposited bills with the Bank as security for a loan. The bills thus
deposited had turned out, on exAminatiod, to be forged, and the
Bank, by this action, only sought to recover back the money ad.
vanced en a security whioh proved to be of no value
To this action he did not apprehend there could be any.
real defence. The facts of the case were simply as follow :
Mr. Tomkins, the defendant, in the month of September
last, borrowed 11,0001. from the Bank on the secu
city of eleven Exchequer bills for 1,0001- each, and the ad-
vance being for a month only. At the end of the month the
Bank called upon Mr. Tomkins to repay the advance, and take
back his Exchequer bills, and gave him a day beyond the time to
which lie was entitled for that purpose. The defendant took
away three out of the eleven bills before the credit had expired,
but intimated to the Bank that the state of the market, or some
other matter, rendered it inconvenient for him to take the remain-
der, and that the Bank must realise the amount to secure them.
rely s. The bit's were accordingly sent into the market by the
Bank, and sold in the first instance to a Mr. Scott, a stock broker.
They were subsequently purchased by Capel and Co., the brokers,
for Messrs. Coutts and Co., the bankers. The bills lay for some
days in the hands of Coutts and Co., when rumours prevailed that
spurious Exchequer bills had found their way into the Stock.
market , and the bills in question were sent to the
office of the Comptroller of the Exchequer fir examination,
and it was then ascertained that the bills were forgeries. Coutts
and Co. claimed the amount from the party from whom their broker
purchased, and that party against his immediate vendor, and so on
until these eight forged bills were returned to the Bank of Eng-
land, who claimed the amount, as they were clearly entitled to do,
from the defendant, who deposited the bills with them. There were
only two persons, at the time the. forged bills bore date and were
issued, who had any right to sign, or did sign, Exchequer bills—
Lord Monteagle, the Comptroller, and Mr. Dudley Percival, the
Deputy-Comptroller. These two persons would be called as wit.
nesses, and upon their sat sfying the Jury that the bills In question
were forged, he apprehended he should be entitled, under the Lord
Chief Baron's direction, to a verdict for the Bank of England for
the amount advanced on the eight bills, which was 8,0001., with in-
terest and expenses amounting to 3431. _ _

The proof that the Exchequer bills produced were those de-
posited with the Bank by the defendant in September last, was of
a formal nature, and no question arose on it.
Lord Monteagle (who was accommodated a ith a seat on the
Bench) was then examined, and stated at considerable length, and
in detail, the manner in which Exchequer bills were signed and
issued. The only persons authorised to sign those securities were
the witness and Mr. Percival, the Deputy-Comptroller. The paper
was made with a peculiar water.mark. The bills were engraved
from plates, engraved in and kept in the custody of the office, ard
there was an official seal attached. The bills came in a series of
•560't which was called a book. Each bill was numbered, and bad
a counterfoil containing the number, and the-counterfoils were re-
tained after the bills were issued. His Lordship pronounced the
eight bills produced to be forgeries.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lane—The watermark, engraving, and
seal were correct. In fact the bills now produced had all the in-
dications of genuine bills, but the signature was a forgery. No
question had arisen upon any of the series of bills which had actu-
ally been signed by witness. The spurious bills produced Iv. re of
the March issue, and that issue was signed by Mr, Percival. Wit.
nets did not believe that the signature to the bills now shown was
in the handwriting of Mr. Percival. When he was first shown
those bills Mr. Percival was present, and he (Lord Monteagle) at
once referred to that gentlemen as the best authority; but if he had
been forced to act at once on his own judgment, he should have
declared the bills in question forgeries, as they differed in many
respects from the ordinary character of Mr. Percival's handwriting.
Upon comparing the forged bills with the counterfoils of the
corresponding numbers in the office, he was convinced the bills
now produced were forgeries. There were counterfoils to all books
of Exchequer bills, but when the bills were issued the counterfoils
were sent to the Treasury. Mr. Beaumont Smith, as chief clerk,
have had access to the counterfoils whilst they remained in the
had an opportunity of getting at the paper and seal, and he might
Comptroller's office. •
Mr. Percival corroborated the testimony of Lord Monteagle in
every particular. Witness signed the series of bills containing the
numbers corresponding with the forged bills, on the Ilth of March,
1841. The numbers ran from 8,001 to 8,501, and he signed his
name to the book to indicate that he had attached his signature tib
that number of bills.

The bills corresponding with the alleged forged bills were placed
in witness's hand. Those bills he had signed on the 1 lth March,
they were genuine in every respect. The other bills produced, eight
in number, were forgeries. The name of the Comptroller was nnt

in the hand• writing of witness, it differed from his hand-writing
in many respects. Comparing the bills now produced, with the
counterfoils, he was convinced which were the genuine bills and
.which were the forgeries.

Cross-examined.—Witnen signed about 058 bills on the 111 h
March, 500 were of what they called the ten million issue, and the
remainder of what was known as tho eleven million issue. The
bills were not signed until they were wanted. The issues took
place in a day or two after the signing. The issues were under dif.
lerent Acts of Parliament. It occupied witness three-quarters of
au hour to sign 500 bills. Some of the numbers were similar, but
when the numbers were alike, the tenor of the bills were different.
The bills specified under what Act they were issued.
lle.examined.—The numbers could not correspond in any case
where bills were issued under the same Act of Parliament. There
were no two bills issued of the same number and th^ same tenor.
Mr. FILE, for the defendant, could not conceive how the question
which the Jury had to dispose of could be altogether separated
from the claim which the holders of the alleged forged Ex.
chequer hills had on the Government. The Bank of England
claimed a return of advances from the defendant, on the
ground that the Government refused to pay the amount of the
Exchequer bills or acknowledge their validity. The Govern-
ment said those bills were forged, and Mr. Percival now stated

that the signature was not his. It was impossible for the de.
fendant to call witnesses to contradict Mr. Percival, but it was ad.
milted on all hands, that the paper, the stamp, and the seals of
the bills now produced, were the same as those found in and upon
all Exchequer bills. It was also clear, that some of the counter-
foils mast have been destroyed. " If the counterfoils of the bills
now produced, had been found In the office, could Mr. Percival
have declared those bills forgeries? 'At all events, it would
be a grevlous hardship on the defendant who purchased those
bills fairly in the market as genuine securities, they having all the
indications of being genuine, if he should now be; told that the se.
curity in which he had invested his property was worthless, and that
the Government would not acknowledge his claim. This, however,
would be the consequence, if the Jury returned a verdict against

the defendant in this action. ~....._,
Lord ABINGER said the question as to the claims of the Ex.
h there were other consi.
gernment to
chequer bill holders upon the Government was quite distinct from
that which the Jury had now to consider, There were a thousand
simply, whether the Jury
circumstances which might induce the Gbyovtielrenaennkt
ofto England,
and which were forged, when those bills were clearly shown to be in
the hands of innocent holders, although such circumstances had no
bearing on the present case. He had no difficulty, however, in
saying, that in his opinion there was no legal liability on the
of Mr. Percival ; and
thatupon examining the
pay such bills.
tt
held by
s
db,Greehorl
eriaeetir,oednnt Government
questionet whichtil
et teoii i
eight
pattyh mighti fEso.cr
cagihseneded,:htbi
icoi
eel; bills,
vihlealesrl
and deposited by the defendant, were forged ; and not whether the
Government ought or ought not to pay Mr. Percival stated that the
signature was not in his handwriting, and gave the elements on which
he came to that conclusion. Lord Monteagle said he did not be.
Ii
botheve t hteh signaturesose
counterfoils, they were convinced that the signatures to
those bills were forged, and that these were not
genuine Exchequer bills. Under these circumstances, the
Jury, if they believed the Exchequer bills were forged, must
‘viwitnesses
uteos be
dienc
ltahreed, handwriting
find for the plaintiff; if they believed they were not forged, they
should find for the defendant. He might add, however, that if the
Government were bound to paY the bills in question, the verdict
in this case would not prevent Mr. Tomkins from recovering
against the Government, nor would it interfere with his claim in
an equitable point of view, if he satisfied the Government he was
an innocent holder. Indeed, in no respect could Mr. Tomkins's
claim on the Government be prejudicedby the verdict in this action.
The Jury, without any hesitation, returned a verdict for the
plaintiffs—Damages, 8,3431.
---------

COURT, Feb. 18.
TaOpqßaSri'll in Court on ins petition
tnoor
aaClnlholahnt
il esieers
elvnetntlshereaping
e supported the application.
INSOLVENTI3E: DEBTORS'
IN RE THOMAS HASLAM.
ioynn-sl:saliveieehialattstealans
The insolvent carried on
plumber and glazier, and now
to be discharged. Mr.
the latter being cast with costs
Mr. Cooke opposed it, on behalf of Al r .
groundsp H u at I
0,
faois,poloiscii:
ion
businesset,t:r:eddi it
were,wh o residedth a
tbneetx:ede.n)orttic:et
opposing
very trifling
action arose from some act of trespass. Mr.
agreed to resig❑ his claim under
his feet on Mr.
and the
by
Duncan's door-scraper;
was arrested. A deed was
Woodruffe described it as tPhi°ensisinnisg:
which Mr. Haslam,
the insolvent's father, became
and book-debt, on the ground of being a creditor for 550/.
the deed, and leave the appropriation of the property in ti .e
Mr. Haslam, son., having
hands of an assignee, he (Mr. H• ) proving among the body of the
creditors, the insolvent was ordered to be conditionally dis•
charged.
IN RE JOHN CHARLES NORTH.
The insolvent in this case applied on his petition to be dis•