Star.
London, England, 1823-01-09 00:00:00

' LAW INTELLIGENCE.

;)•

. .
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAIIII.4ItY a.
• LEE 11. wenrsau.
Mr. Casten-ELL stated that this was an action on a
check, drawn by the defendant for 71. on his bankers,
Messrs. Fry and Chapman, of which the plaintiff was
the lawful bearer.
Mr. Scaat.F.rr addressed the Jury, who would, he
said, have no question to slecide, but whether the
plaintiff was the la‘vful proprietor of the check which
the defendant had made himself liable to pay. The
plaintiff was a tea-dealer on Ladgatedrill, whose
father had for. forty sir years carried on the business
of a hatter in the same situation, and who bore an
unimpeachable character. On Saturday, the 26th of
October, in last year, a young woman of respectable
appearance came to his shop, asked for a pound' of
tea, and tendered the check in
_dispute, requesting
change. Mr. Lee's shopman carried it to his master,
who asked the woman *where she came from'? She,
said from Mr. Scott, 23, Bonverie-street ; upon-which
Mi. Lee-put down the name in the order-book, anii
gave the tea and six sovereigns and 12s. the- fulli
'change. On the next Monday the check was presented'
,at Fry and Chapman's. who refused to psi
it, .alleging that they had orders to that effect froml
Mt. Newsam, who said it had beers stolen. Notwith-
standing that this explanation .was given .do DT;rn
•New:sani, Ire thought ,proper to summon Mr. Leo
befilre the Lord Maypre. and to charge him with re.
ceiving the check, knowing it to have been stolen.-:-:
The parties appeared; Mr. Lee and his shop.man tuade
their statements, and the charge was dismissed:
.'Lee now tluitrght it right to try this-action, in order:
to Clialletigiinvestigatton info ,his Character, which
be knew could not be affected-4Y the strictest inquitY.
The hand -Writing of the defendant was admitted,
and. the preset-Knight and. refusal. in pay. the check
clearlY.Prois;Lt. • *
Mr: Edward Ward, shopman to Mr. Lce, deposed
to the effect stated by Mr. &axle% respecting the
'Danner in which the bill came into the plaintiff's
hands. On his cross:examination he said' that the
transaction took plaie between. six and severs' o'clock
ifs the.etening. He did not know Mr. Newsani,who
was trot ientarnif Of his master's, nor his hand-
writing ; !P. ither did lie know Mr. Scott. He did not
• send any one with the. woman to inquire into the
trnth of the story. He had been six months in the
aert,icenf grAee, and had served seven years" rty
krentiieship to the trade, but he could not say that
-ha had ever known a check received where the party
drawing it, and-the party offering it, were both of
1. 'them strangers. •• • •
FM. the* defindant two grounds of defence were'
euggested—ffirst, that Ward mast have beetitniatakei
as to the va!ue given for .she note, bncitpae the plaint-
tiff himself had admitted that be-did Dot,,give. fnll
value;and, secondly,' that supposing 'Wards tate-
anent to -be "Ciirrect, Mr. ''Lee had taken the-check
under such circumstances of suspicinn as ought to
have iodated -him to make inquiry, and as rendered
' frrins' fairly responsible for the loss..
,Lbecks, it was
ar&tred, were, riot like Bank notes, which were gua-
.: ranteedijUireat public coMpany,•and which ordi-
naiily: were received as cash; they ,were never, in
• 'fact, received by any careful and prudent •man,
,lels; he either knee' the party by whom they were
Signed,. or- the party by whom they were presented, ,
and thus was able to rely on their authenticity and ,
thi.ir value: -The check in question was undoubtedly
titOletaiand it would give a fatal facility to the corn-
,
trnisPcin'nf forgery and fraud, if tradesmen, •for any
fancied advantage, should receive such an instre-
.stient from an unknown person, whose purchase was ,
Scared/ a=-twentieth part of its amount. Here Mr.
~I.ce had no knowledge of Newsam •or Scott; the
,Check might be a forgery, or might be drawn
.by
Some one-who had no effects to answer it ; and, under
these ,circumstances, even if he gave value for-the
. Oeck;he" ritithrto bear. the consequences of that
13egIieFf..9“rlue,y, ltleast, he had been guilty.
Mr. C. %%Payne, the clerk oftlie defendant, said,
*." Alt .61t- the Y.3tb- of October he receivedthe check
ant ;.
.Mr.„Nearsirn pint of his salary. As it was
itit;nigT77o-it- night, he shad no opportunity of pre-
'isienting it for payment:that day, but lodged it in his
Abirter's dash-bos. The box was stalen.before tea in
„..,.the,nlorning.. when he returned to-the office, and he,
desire or Mr. Newsam, gave notice to Messrs.
Vey and Chaptnan not to pay the check. On Mon-
dtty,, the plaintiff came to Mr. Newsam's,o? know the
astitl .eliir;'ilie was not paid. At first, Mr.
ttersjl
iafia 'era: not, within, but he soon afterwards
came, wben.the plaintiff informed him that he bad
taken the check from a woman 4,016 shop on Satur-
day evening. Mr. Newsam asked him if he gave full
value for the check? and he admitted that he tied
trot. He said. that he nether knew Mr. Scott nor
Mr, New.— Mr. Newsam's signature. The next

Dirt Newsarn, or Mr. Newsam s st