Star.
London, England, 1810-08-09 00:00:00

LAW JAVIELLIGENCE.

•
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, AUGUST 4.
• SCHOLEY V. RAMSBOTTOM.
This was an action for money had and received.for
the plaintiff's use.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that the plaintiff,
who was a respectable bookseller, hiving money in
the bank of Ramsbottom and Co. wanting to draw a
certain sum. on the 20th of September, 1809, wrote
a check on the banker ; but having changed his mind
as to the amount which he was about to draw, the
plaintiff tore the check, and threw it under his feet.
This check, which was torn in four parts, and dirty
by being trampled on, was picked up by a person who
afterwards gave in his name as Cummin. The muti-
lated check was pasted together, with a piece of
strong paper at the back, and in that state was car-
ried by Cummin ta the defendant's house, on the 24th
of the month. The clerk at the counter received the
check, paid it without hesitation, and of course placed
the amount, 066, to the plaintiff's debt. The plain-
tiff resisted this application, and the action arose in
consequence. The plaintiff conceived that a check
► om ng tinder such circumstances to his banker should
no• have been paid without enquiry ; and it was with
the Jury to decide whether the• appearance of the
trampled and tern check ought not to have excited
an enquiry, "teach must have immediately detected
the fraudulent pottession.
Kinedon, the clerk, who had received the
check, was tzamined. He had observed nothing on it
that ought to have excited suspicion ; it was not torn
roughly, nor was it dirty. The edges cif the divisions,
were so neatly joined, that the junction might have
escaped any eye. Checks were frequently brought
torn and divided; there was no hesitation about pay-
ing them. He could not ascertain the person to whom
the check was paid.
On his cross-examination, be admitted, that he could
not charge his memory with any of the particular ap-
pearances of the paper, but his expressions as to its
cleanness and neatness of joining arose merely from
his perfect feeling that it must have been very like
other checks to have passed his eye, and that he could
never have paid any paper which came before him in
the state of that one which was now in Court.
Other clerks were called to prove that the paper
might have passed without suspicion, but they had no
perfect recollection of the paper in question.
The ATTORNIY-GENERAL in his reply, disclaimed
all idea of fastening any blame on the evidence of
ICngdon ; but it was quite clear that his evidence
must go for nothing, from his imperfect memory of
the transaction, and his being interested in proving
the payment to be justified, as be was the clerk by
whose carelessness the money was given to Cummin.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH went with much minuteness
into the circumstances of the case. A note might be
divided in four ways, either by wearing in the folds,
or by cutting to send by post, or by accident, or for
cancelling. This paper was not cut in two, nor worn
in the folds. If then it had been torn for cancelling,
•it was clear that the banker ought not to have paid
it ; but if torn by accident, that was sufficient to have
excited suspicion at the banker's, and the clerk should
lave enquired how the paper came into the hands of
the person who brought it to his counter ? When a
Man placed spOney in his banker's haads,he had a right
to conceive it in a place. of security. He had a clear
right to expect proper caution in the banker in paying
it away—full as much caution as was, under ordinary
circumstances, necessary to secure the money. In the
present case there was a want of the cantion which
ought to have been excited, and by that want, the
money was paid away to aman who had fraudulently
obtained possession of the check.
The Jury retired from the box, and after a consi-
derable consultation, brought in a verdict 'for the
Plaintiff.—Damages £366.
AUGUST 6.— WILLIAM V. BARLOW.
This' was an action on a policy of insurance at and
from Surinam to London, =he ship Mentor. The ques-
tion in the cause was, whether the ship, at the time ofl
insurance, was sea-worthy or not? There was a great
deal of evidence both ways, and the cause lasted nearly
the whole day • at length the Jury found for the plain-
tiff, namely, that the ship was sea-worthy.
ROUTH V. THOMPSON.
This was an action to recover the loss on a ship and
cargo, insured from Lisboa to England.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated, that immediately
before the breaking out of the Danish war, an order
had been issued tostop all Danish ships. The Duchess
of Bedford hired armed vessel, in the transport service,
met the ship in question, and carried her into Lisbon
in consequence of the order. 'When there, the Captain
of the Duchess of Bedford, thinking it a pity so good
a ship should be idle, as the Portuguese and English
at that time at Lisbon, were wanting vessels to em-
bark their property, freighted her, and directed her to
•be insured for £3OOO. The ship and cargo were lost
on the voyage, and the insurers refused to pay ; chiefly
on the ground that, as the ship was not the property
of the Duclie.;s of Bedford's people, they had no insu-
rable interest in her, and could not insure in their own
name. An action bad been already brought, and de-
feated on this ground, but the King, who had an in-
surable interest in all property so captured, had now,
by the advice of his Counsel, ad.)pted the insurance
for his Royal benefit, and the action was renewed on
this change of circumstaptres.
Mr. PAnKE, .for the defendant, proposed to have
entire question put into a case foe argument ; prin-
cipally arguing upon the power of the Crown to adopt
the insurance —The Jury would of course find a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, subject to •the opinion of the
Court, on the point of law, and of an arbitrator as to
the loss upon the freight.

COWII V. SHERWOOD.

This action was brought to recover damages for a
breach of contract. The defendant had enteard into,
a written agreement to purchase a cargo of Swedish
cicals,landing from on board the Hunter, at the Sur-
rey Canal. The buyer was to object to any of the.
timber which might be damaged, subject, to the final
settlement of the brokers employed on the occasion.'
Sixteen hundred of the deals were immediately deli-
vered, and bills to the amount of 01000 were given
by the defendant. After that delivery, however, de-
fendant had never made any application for the re-. 1
mainder of the cargo, although repeatedly informed
that it was-ready, it he chose to send for it, tendering,
of course, goat bills for the womb Some diraatis4

\ •