Star.
London, England, 1824-04-22 00:00:00

SIR RICGARD SUTTON U. TUE BANK OF ENGLAND.

Mr. SCAR Ll= stated the plaintiff's case. Sir Richard
Sutton inherited la-ge property from the late Mar:
chioness of Bath. He had inherited in the funds about
300,0001. and had employed much of this property in
the pu►chase of lands. In transferring stock for trig
purpose, he had employed Mr. Alexander Macdougall,
as his Attorney, who was one of the oldest and most
respectable of the profession in London, and who had
transferred stock for Sir Richard to the amount of
4200,0001. In October last Sir Richard purchased land
in Norfolk, and sent a Power of Attorney to Mr. Mac-
dougall to transfer 60,0001. in order to pay for this pro-
perty, the sum required being 20,000/. The delay from
the time taken by the Bank of England in verifying this
Power of Attorney, was the ground of the present ac-
tion. By this delay a lois of upwards of 2001. was sus-
tained, besides brokerage. This loss, he submitted, the
13ank must be Habit for. Some delay to verify powers
was righ., but there must be some limit to it. In this
case the Attorney was well known, and proof was offered
of the must conclusive kind, of the authenticity of the
powers. The plaintiff was, no doubt, rich, but he was
Lo: therefore to be liable for a loss thus occasioned.

Benjamin Boyd, a stock-broker, was employed in
selling out stuck for Sir Richard Sutton. I received the
lower of Attorney on the 20th of October ; on the same
<fay sold 23,1001. at 831. The usual practice is to
lodge the power in the Power of Attorney Office on one
day, and receive it verified the next. When I went to
make the transfer, I found the power was not come for-
ward ; 1 went to Mr. Nesbitt, Inspector of Powers ; I
had di opt the power in the box in the usual way. Mr.
Nesbitt said that the power exceeding 20,0001. must be
inspected by the Directicrs, but that he had looked at
it, and had no doubt it was correct. At a later hour I
inquired, and found that it was not come; Mr. Mac-
deugall was with me. A third time we were told it was
under Mr.'Kay's inspection, and that if Mr. [Macdou-
gall would indemnify, it would pass; Mr. Macdougall
assented. We went to the office of Mr. Dawes, who.
said the power was under consideration in the Bank
parlour, and be could give no further answer. We went
to him a second time, when Mr. Macdougall stated that
the money was required that day to pay for an estate,
and said he would hold the Bank responsible. Mr.
Dawes said he believed it was owing to some difference
between the signature of that and a former power. Mr.
Macdougall said he would bring ample proof of the sig-
nature, and of his having acted upon it before. !kir.
Dawes said he could give no further answer ; I bought
back tke stock at the same price; I called every day
flom the 21st to the 25th of October, when M. Nes-
bitt said the power was passed. On Wednesday, the
29th, I sold out the stock again; on the 25th 1 had sent
to Mr. Macdougall, but he was out of town. Satur-
day, 25th, and Monday, 27th, were private trans-
fer days, and Tuesday was a holiday ; I sold, at 821.
t`,6,3051. 12s. 6J. On the sum sold the first day this
made a difference of 2901. 115.61 On Saturday the dif-
ference at the highest price would have been 891. 16s.
at the lowest, 1491. 141. The charge fur brokerage was
29/. 18s. lid. on the first sale. Oa Monday, 27th, the
eitrerence would have been the same as Wednesday, 29th.
Cross-examined by Mr. ArrottNEY•GENERAL.—The
highest pr;ce on Friday was 85i. (The witness was
pressed whether it had not been 831, and his minutes
scocre[y inquired into).
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (handing the list).—That
is Whittinghall's list ; look there if the highest price was
not S3l, and the lowest 83i ?
Witness highest on Friday the 24th is
tiki,,,.the lowest 63-1. (His Lordship laughed heartily
at this result, and some applause was expressed by the
spectators.)
Alexander Mac,Toogall.—(This witness substantially
confirmed the tetiniony of the former).-1 stated to Mr.
Dam es that it w:: nezeisq.y fur me to leave town with
the money' on the 21st._ I communicated to Mr. Nesbitt

•
and to Mr. DAWCS that indemnify to any
:t mount. I offered to produce letters and checks drawn
by Si' Richard, and to produce his bankers, Sir W.
Ciirti, and Messrs. PraeJ. It was a great inconvenience
'kw to have got the money.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gun:sm.—Sir Richard Sut-
tot.'s address was given. 1 did not suggest writing.to
Sir Itichar d, but said it might be right for the Gover-
nors to make it a general rule to receive powers by post.
Re-esa uined.—l knew Mr. Kay upwards of 40 years.
Mr. Arroanwt-Gnittiltnt. addre4ed the Jury for the
13. ink. If prices had risen, the difference would have
strund its way iutti Sir Richard's pockets.
The Lose Caner Jurrica.—No &slat ; and so k ought.
Arrtiotaar-thiniaau.—fie Governors Were trustees for
.21.; 1' cblic.

The Lola Come JUSTICL—NO, they are not.
The ATTORNRY-GENERAL meant for the proprietors,
a large proportion of the monied public. Great Caution
was necessary in pa,sing a Power of Attorney for so
large a sum as 60,0001. He would produce ,former
powers, and submit the -signatures to them, that they
might judge whether there was reasonable ground of
doubt. They wrote immediately to Sir Richard .Button,
to Norwood Park, in Nottinghanishire,and to Sidbroke,
in Lincolnshire; the answer could not be received ,till
Friday morning, and on Friday the power was passed.
The Bank passed 40,000 powers in the year, and on an
average 800 a-week. For every error, their constituents
suffered. The difference might be much greater, and .on
larer .turns. It was the first instance of such an action.

William D.twes.—l am Chief Accountant to the
Bank. I compared the signatures, and to me there ap-
peared a material dissimilatity. 1 submitted it to the
Governor.—The two powers were put in.
Witness—l wrote to Nottinghamshire, by desire of
the Governor, and to Sidbroke. I received an answer on
the 14th. (It was, i"r:ie signature is quite correct,
at least it ‘% a; wi itten with my hand.") Tile letter was
received, I should presume, between eleven and twelie
in the morning. I passed the power after I had shewn
the letter to the Governor.

Mr. SCA R LETT—I object--
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—AD, certainly, you have a
right. Individuals might have put up with losses ra-
ther than bring actions against so powerful a body.
Mr. Kay, Solicitor for the Bank for thirty-six years.
—Mr. Macdougall said to me, " If there were any
doubts of the signature, they had better write to Sir
Richard Sutton ; an answer might be received of Fri-
day." I said, "It a satisfactory answer is received, you
may make the transfer on that day." 11. acquiesced in
my observation that the sum was too large for any indi-
viduars indemnity. I suggested that the witnesses resid-
ing in the country,wecould not communicate with them.
Mr. Nesbitt, Inspector of Powers for 47 years, passed
this power in the first instance. •
Cross-examined—lf I see an objection, I do not send
it up. I made no objection to this power.
Mr. Scaftterr replied in a powerful speech, and
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up. The ques-
tions for the Jury were, was there reasonable ground of
doubting the sand-writing? and if there was, was rea-
sonable diligence used to remove that doubt before
three o'clock, in order to let the transfer he made on that
day? It was a singular circumstance that one of the
witnesses, Mr, Chaplin, was witness to the former power.
The plaintiff was clearly entitled to their verdict. The
next question was, the amount of damages.
The Jury found for the plaintiff:—llifference, 209!.
1 Is. Gd. brokerage, 29/. 18s. 11 d.