Star.
London, England, 1812-01-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELL.

;ENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JANUARY 14.
LESINGHASI V. FRASER AND OTHERS.
This was an action for money had and received
brought by the Master of Sir John Cass's school at
sAldgate, against his Bankcrss, Messrs, the late Hon.
Simon Fraser, Sir John Perring, Bart. and Co. to re-
cover a sum of £B2. 10s. alledged to have been paid
them on his account, by the plaintiff, and the appear.
ante of which, as a credit to the plaintiff's account in
the Banker's books, was attributed by them to a mis-
take. On the part of the plaintiff was adduced the
evidence of two boys, of the ages of 15 and 13, who
,in the year 1810, the time at which the sum in ques-
tion was alledged to have been pail, were the plain-
tiff's scholars. Their names were Payne and Linde;
and Lord Eu.r.vnonoucat observed, that the manner
in which they gave their evidence was so unembar-
rassed and straight I irward, as of itself to lead to no
suspicion that their story was not true. They were
perfect us to their recollecti n of the '24th of March
having been the day.on which they twice went to the
Bankers to pay money for their master. The first
time they paid in £37, the payment of which was al-
lowed by the defendants. The second time they count-
ed over the sum of £B'2. 10s.in the presence of Mr. Pea-
cock, a baker, in Bishopsgate-street, who had called to
pay their master money. It was Linde's first time of
being in a Banker's shop, and lie took notice of the
quantity of dollars which one of the clerks was count- !
ing ; and ob'crved to his companion, that the two !
which composed the 10s. they had to pay in v culd
make two more. They took with them their mastet's
pass-book ; and the clerk, whom Payne afterwascfs
singled out from the lest to be a gentleman of the
name of Kent, wrote in it, and returned it to the boys. I
Mr. Peacock was present when the lads returned, and
asked the plaintiff how he could trust them to pay so
much money ? The plaintiff replied, that he was in the
habit of doing so, and she wed Peacock the entry in
the passbook, to convince him that he had not un-
worthily reposed his confidence in them. Mr. Pea-
cock confirmed the testimony of the boys, and added,
that he paid £76 to the plaintiff on the 24th, the day
in question ; but it did not appear whether any of
this money formed a part of the £B2. On the con- i
trary, some notes indorsed " Peacock," in his brother's
hand-writing, were produced by the defendants, as
fs,rtrbing Nut of a subsequent payment of £'2B Is.
inad4 by the plaintiff to them on the 26th following.
Strong in favour of an uctual payment to the deten-
r dents by the plamriff as was this evidence, yet Lord
ELLexaonotlon observed, that if from documents'
in- the defendants' business it could be proved to be
impossible to be true, the Jury would be compelled
to disregard it, and to find a verdict for the &fen-
• dents On their part were called Mr. Kent, and all the
clerks implicated, who swore they never received the

sum in question from the boys, although the tact of
their paying the firs, sum of kr was recollected and
admitted; and it appear ed by the pass-book whirl: Mr.
Peacock swore to have teen seen on the 24th, that
the entry was not made till the '26th, on which day
it was dated ; and the defendants' clerks swore, that
the plaintiff's name had been given to than by their
principals, as having overdrawn his account, and was
written down by them to be kept in mind. Being
tlteisimpresstd upon their memory when a cheque
for £B2. 10s. was on th? 26th paid into the account
altiattotter customer (Mr. Shenstone), they by mis-
take attributed it to the plaintiff ; and thus it found
its way from their waste-book into the plaintiff's pass
book, and their ledger. It was proved how Mr.
Shenstone had received and paid the cheque jest
mentioned ; and the en-or was not rectified till he
found that it had been omitted in his account. The
same sum could not have been also paid by the pla;n-
tiff and purloined by any of the bankers' clerks, with-
out he had made three •different thefts; one cf the
large nritesfrom one drawer, another of the smallnotes
from clie ;-a7,;tion of anothcr drawer, and a third of
the cash fiens t:•ie other partition: and it was proved,
that there was to -error in the defendants' balance on
that day.
Mr. Tormo, for the plaintiff, rested his case upon
the alternative, that if it were not true. the plaintiff
had suborned three persrns to perjure themselves,
two of them ingenious and well educated boys ; and
attributed the defendants' denial of it to a mistake, of
which they were not conscious, in the hurry of busi-
ess upon a Saturday, as the 24th was ; and that, the
Saturday before they moved their banking business
to another shop on the Monday following.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL and Mr. Gaaaow, Were
heard for the defendants. The Jury, after retiring
for some time, found their verdict fur the defendants.