Star.
London, England, 1826-06-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

i .—.......
SUM MRR ASSIZES.—MiDLAND CIRCUIT.
t : fore Lord Chief Justice Armor', and Chief Baron Auxannits.
orthatuptonshire—=Adonday, July 3. at Northampton.
' ' tlandsbire—Friday, July 7, at Oakham.
'Lincolnshire—Satutday, July 8, at Castle of Lincoln.
City of Lincoln—Sam# day, at the City of Lincoln.
Nottinglsamskire—Thursday, July 13, at Nottingham.
.Town of Nottingham—Same day, at the Town of ditto.
Derbyshire—Saturday. July 15, at Det by.
Leicestershire—Wednesday. July 19, at Castle of Leicester.
Borough of Leicester—Same day, at Borough of ditto.
City of Coveutry—Saturday, July 22, at City of Coventry.
Warwickshire—Same day, at Warwick.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Joni 10.
•ELLkSLEY t 7. THE DUKE 01 ZHAO/PORT.

Mr. 11•a;produced to the Court an additional aSdavit of Mr.
Wellesley, et which the other side were permitted to take a copy
at the request of their Counsel, Mr. Trimurti.
The LORD Cuatrmatcost observed, that several addi-
tional affidavits on both sides had been handed up to
him, which he had read carefully, and when counsel
should have done the same, he would be preparei to
give his.judgment in this case.
Mr. TaisLovs said, that his clients had not yet received amy
of the affidavit filed yesterday on the part of Mr. Wellesley.
The Loan CHANCELLOR remarked, it was a very ma-
terial affidavit. An important letter was referred to in
it, and if Mr. Treslove got the affidavit, he hoped he
would take care that the letter were not lost.

Mr. HART believed that his client was very willing
to communicate the contents of his affidavits to the other
side, and had displayed great patience in waiting to
suit their convenience.. There were several of the op-
posite affidavits which Mr. Wellesley had not yet seen,
and he (Mr. Hart) thought that the better way would
be to forward ;hem to him in Yorkshire.

IN THE MATITIt OF HOWARD AND atsas.

The TARR CHANCELLOR proceeded this morning to
comment.further upon the evidence. He stated that he
should continue to devote some portion of every day
thus to comment upon the evidence, till he had gone
entirely through it, by which time he should be able to
pronounce a through
decision.

PRACTICE OP THE COURT.

The Loan CHARCELLOR wished solicitors to!). aware
that in the paper which would be made out between the
seals, nothing but appeals could be inserted.
Mr. Houma timaglit that the regiitrar ought to put up a nodes
to that effect I. his dice.
The Loss CUAIIMILLOS said that uoddag maid la future be per
mined to interrupt the appeals, ones bulaess of a vary pressing
,oatore indeed. .

IN Tilt MATTER OS SIR a. P. TURNS&
Mr. HSALD wished his Lordship to specify a particu-
lar time and place-for trying the traverse in this case.
*He suggested Bedfordshire as the fittest place for the
trial, and in case there were a deficiency of special ju-
fors:present..the Committee of the lunatic should be
authorized to pray a tiles.
The Loa* Ciao:atom directed the trial to tile place on the
19th instant, in Bedfordshire, with liberty to both sides to pray a
tales if necessary.
The Duke of Missal, the Marquis of Bute, the Earl of Weenies,
and other &etch Peers, took the necessary oaths' before the Lord
Chancellor, previously to their voting at the election of the &etch
Representative Peers.

COURT OP KING'S MINCH, Jcvi 10.
LIABILITY OF NANICIBI IN CAS= OF F 01103111%
HALL V. BULLER AND OTBERS.

This was a special case, stated far the opinion of the
Court.—The plaintiff kept cash at the house of defend-
ants, who were bankers; and having given a check on
them for .g three pounds" to a person %%lit) paid it away
to others, the word " pounds" svAs.extr.icted by some
cl.emicat proczs, and th: " I tilltired plandsN

substituted—thereby
.making the check a draft for thee
hundred pounds. This was paid by the defendints,
though they had only 1971. belonging to the plaintiff
then in their hands; and a man (we believe of the name
of Greigson) was tried, cnnvictedt and executed for the
forgery, about three years ago.
Mr. F. Pot.t.ocs, for the plaintiff, now contended that
the check in question was not te be considered the
check of the plaintiff, and therefore the defendants were
liable to pay him. at all events, the sum of 1941. the
amount of the balance of his account that would be ir,
their hands after paying the three pounds for which
alone this check was drawn. The Learned Counsel
could not find any direct authority in the English books
upon this point; but in Ramsbottom v. Schosey, firs:
Campbell, 485, where bankers had paid a torn check.
they were held liable tor the loss; and in Potier's Trr..
tait du Contrait Exchange, this sort <f cue was sup-
po.ed, and the bankers were held liable.

Mr. GouLauftNa, for the defendant, contended, tha,
if the bankers were to be held liable in this case, it wound
impose upon them an immense tesponsibility. In the
mercantile world, it was a co:want practice for the
bodies of cheques 'to be written in one hand, and the
signature in another; and if, when bankers SAW the
bona fide signature of a customer to a cLeque, they we:e
to be liable for any alteration that might be made in
body, it would impose upon them a hazard, ag4::,,t
which no foresight could guard.
The COURT were clearly of opinion that the defend-
ants were liable, because they had paid away a sum of
money belonging to the plaintiff which he never autb:••
deed. On looking at the check- in question, th';r
Lordships saw it was written on one- of chose black
forms, formerly in use, which were sus-crucible to:
erasure or the process used in this case; but, fortunately,
forms were now printed on thin parer, which wo3;cl
prevent the occurrence of a simil tr case in fume; as
the forgery would be instantly detected.
Judgment for the pl.tindff.