Star.
London, England, 1826-10-26 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Oct. 28.
attain NOTRS.—SNOW AND OTHERS V. LATHAM AND
STHRRS.
Mr. SGARLETT said the plaintiffs were respectable
Bankers, residing its the Strand. The defendants are also
Bankers, living in Doncaster. This action was brought
to recover the value of certain bank notes, which found
their way into the defendants' hands. Some time in
September 1824., Snow and Co. in the course of busi-
ness, made a list of the several securities they had
received during the day. On the morning of the 9th
of September, 1824, the Clerk, whose duty it was to
collect the money from the banking houses on the east
side of Temple Bar, was entrusted with sundry warrants,
&c. to receive money to the amount of 30001. The
name of this clerk was Smith, and he should prove
that Smith, on the day in question, did receive the
mhele amount of these orders in bank notes, and
amongst these notes was one for 2001. one for 1001.
and one for 501. On Smith's return with the money,
he got into a crowd near Temple Bar, and lost
the money. The loss was immediately advertised
in the different Newspapers; amongst the rest, in one
called 'I he Hue and Cry, a Journal which was cir-
culated in every part of the kingdom. The plain-
tiffs also published hand-bills, offering a reward for
the discovery of the notes, specifying their different
numbers, &c. Many of these bills were sent round to
the different Banking-houses, and amongst the rest to
the B inking-house of the defendants, at Doncaster.—
The reason for the plaintiffs sending to this firm was
obvious ; they knew that the Doncaster Races were at
hand ; they knew that these Races attracted numbers of
the best and worst of mankind, and afforded opportu-
nity for sharpers to pass money or bills, dishonourably
come by. The plaintiffs sent Taunton, an active and
vigilant police officer, who, on his arrival at Doncaster,
went to the two banks, and delivered the number of the
bills already alluded to. Now he should prove that the
defendants had been sufficiently apprised of the robbery ;
he should also prove, that the notes were received by
them, and not only received but kept by them, for
the space of a whole year, and then were sent to two
different Banking.houses. A Gentleman had received
one of the identical notes from a house in Lincolnshire,
which, coming to the knowledge of the plaintiffs,
they brought an action against the Gentleman for
the recovery of it, in the Common Pieas, and ob-
tained a verdict. If a person omits proper caution, then
is he liable to make restitution to the injured party.—
He should prove that the defendants had changed these
notes, without making a single inquiry respecting them.
After having received such ample notice of the rob-
bery, ought they not to have cautioned their clerks
against discounting bills for perfect strangers, without
putting a single question? The defendants had kept the
notes for a whole year. This alone was a presumptive
proof that they suspected them, for it was seldom that
notes of this kind were kept for a longer period than a
week. They were eventually issued by them, and the
plaintiffs had traced them back to their hands. The
defendants say, that at the time the notes were received,
the shop was so thronged that it was impossible for
them to make inquiries. It unfortunately happened
that one of the notes had not been dated, or, if dated,
the plaintiffs had no account of it ; they had, however,
the number of that note, and that was the best clue to
detection. The Learned Counsel concluded by saying,
that he believed there never was a stronger case than this.
John Goodridge received a 1001. note, produced. from the bank
of the defendants.
Cross-examined—Witness was at the Doncasterßaces.
Be received the note from the bank, after the races
were over. The races begin about two. When witness
went into the bask, there was a great number of people
in it. His name was not on the note.
A clerk of Curtis and Co. proved having received the 1001. note
from the last witness.
Mr. Nayler received a SOL note at the defendants
banking house at Doncaster, in October; 1825—wit-
ness paid it to a Mr. Jackson.
Another witness proved having received a Bank note
for 2001. at defendants' house at Doncaster. He saw on
that occasion two of the partners and their clerks.
Taunton delivered a number of bills at the defendants' banking
house a few days after the robbery.
Several other witnesses were called to prove that the notes In
question had been traced to the defendants.
Mr. Soucrrea Gausaar. then addressed the Jury for the de.
fendants. and called
Mr. Jones, sen. clerk to the defendants; the house is
in the daily habit of receiving notes to the amount of
2001. each ; are not accustomed to make inquiries from
the persons who present them, if they are respectable,'
Cross-examined by Mr. SCARLETT—I remember re-
ceiving a notice of the robbery in 1824, and also a letter
from the plaintiffs; we laid the notice on the table, and
took what precautions we could. I believe it is usual to
keep notes to a large amount for a considerable time
without issuing them.
Mr. Barnack—l am a cashier in the banking house of defendants;
I do not remember to have received this 2001. note.
Several other witnesses were examined.
After the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff had replied,
The Lea. CMS/ JUSTICE summed up, and the Jury found a
verdict for tie plaintiffs—damages 350/.
The Loom Cuter Justice observed, that it was a very proper
verdict, and trusted that it would make people more careful when
they took notes.
On the above cause being called on, only two Special
Jurymen appeared, Mr. Alley and Mr. Dornford.—
The question being put to the Counsel whether he prayed
tales, his Lordship asked for the new Act of Parliament
for regulating Juries. Mr. DornfGrd, in apologizing
for the absence of the Special Jury, stated, that it was
generally understood, at the breaking up of the Court
yesterday, that the cause, Is The King v. Clarke," was to
be the first taken this morning; and that the Jurors in
the present cause, not being summoned till late last
night, was the reason' Gentlemen were not present.—
His Lordship gave some written iostructions to the
Secondary upon the subject, but what they were we
did nut learn.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Octeaza 25.
George Lovdock was indicted for assaulting Ann Osborne.
Mr. E. Qum having
.opened the case to the Jury,
called witnesses from whose testimony the facts appeared
to le these:—The daughter of the prosecutrix, whose
I. usband is a dustman, having been lately married, her
family were celebrating the wedding on the evening in
question, when
.a mob assembled outside the door, and
treated them to what is technically called “ rough
music"—namely, a concert on marrow-bones and cleav-
ers, tee. The prosecutrix not choosing that they should
have their trouble for nothing, raised the window, and
in return for their melody, treated them to the contents
of a cert.in utensil. She then went to the door to in-
quire how they relished their fare, and promised to en-
tertain them with a little more of it, it they continued
to entertain her with their harmony ; upon which the
defendant, forgetful o f Mr. Curran's observation. that

"coming uninvited, he could only expect pot-luck,"
thought proper to resent what he deemed a scurvy re-
ception, and testified his indignation by flinging a tin
kettle (one of the concert instrments) at the hostess.—
For this assault she now indicted him.
Mr. BARRY, for the defendant, called evidence to
prove that be was not the person who had made so un-
worthy a return for the favour conferred upon him by
the prosecutrix ; and the Jury having some doubt on'
that point, returned a verdict of Not Guilt
.y.
Henry William Lambert was indicted for assaulting
Thomas Shepherd, night constable of St. James's parish,
while in the execution of his duty. The prosecutor
stated that Mr. Lambert came to the watch-house, and
offered to give charge of a woman for following and
grossly abusing him in the street. The prosecutor de-
clined to receive the charge, and desired the defendant
to go away. The latter refused to do so, upon which
the prosecutor said he would detain him as a prisoner,
for not obeying him ; and for that purpose be gently
laid his hand upon him, when the defendant resisted
being taken into custody, and struck him in the face
and eyes. He succeeded in detaining him, however,
until next day, when upon going before the Magistrate,
the defendant was held to bail for the assault, and the
prosecutor fined 81. for having refused to receive the
charge against the woman.
Mr. Quin, for the defendant, animadverted upon the
prosecutor's gross perversion of the petty authority with
which he was invested ; and strongly reprobated the
conduct of the parish in bringing forward this prosecu-
tion for the purpose of screening the prosecutor from
the consequences of an action which the defendant had
commenced against him for false imprisonment, and
which action they had invited him to discontinue, upon
condition of their dropping this prosecution. The
Learned Counsel then produced evidenee, from which
it appeared, that upon the defendant telling the night
constable that he would complain to the Magistrate of
his misconduct in not receiving the charge, the latter
replied, that he would not be bullied by him," and
immediately seized the defendant by the collar with
one hand, a bile with the other he struck him on the
jaw. He then confined Mr. Lambert in the black hole,
and refusing to take bail for him, detained him there all
night.—The Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
The Surrey and London Sessions were held yesterday,
but the business at the latter only presented a petty assault case
between two rival frisseurs, of Bears'•grease notoriety ; and that of
the latter, the conviction of a hardened female pilferer in the
Borough, named Norsk Corbett, who was sentenced to lie transported.