Star.
London, England, 1827-12-06 00:00:00

ailoe.ia Holborn, tb **Direr the eststonti t a. bill of
eicitinge at two months, for 201. drawn by a'per,cra of
the name of Elsey,:and accepted by the defendant, a.
Gentleman rending in Bridgewater square. Ile knew
not what defence the defendant intended to offer to this
action, but he expected that it would be something ex
trtordinary, from his having stated on the bill's being
presented to him for payment, " Oh,`l am not liable
upon it ; It is drawn upon an eighteen.penny receipt
,tapsp.'" His client had, however, remedied that defect
by applying to the Commissioners of Stamps; who, on
his paying a penalty of 40s. and the amount of the pro
per stamp, had net cised the power teserved to them in
the 37th of Geo.lll. and subsequent acts, and had affixed
the•proper stamp. The defendant then said that he had,
never received any value for the bill, that it was an ac.
comnsodation bill, and that he should tut pay it. But
tho, as the Jury would hear from bis Lordship, was no
defence against a bona fide holder of the bill, who had
given a valuable consideration for it.
The acceptance and endorsement of the bill, which
was dated July 19,1827, were then proved by a witness
who had never seen either the acceptor or endorset
write anything except their signatures on one occa-
sion to a bail bond.

Mr. TnesIGER addressed the Jary for the defendant,
informing them that the defence to the action rested on
the fact that the bill had been improperly obtained from
the defendant by a person of the name of Peckham, and
that the plaintiff was cognizant of that circumstance.—
lir then-detailed chi facts, which he afterwards ptoved
in evidiffeeo and stated that he had given the plaintiff
notice to prove the consideration he bad giv.n for the-
bill. Unless the plaintiff-proved that coasideration,the de-
fendant, under all the circumstances of this case, would
be entitled to their verdict.

Richard Hunter examined by Mr. Twasroza.—l em
acquainted with the defendant. l.was present in July
last, when a man of the name of Peckham received this
bill from the defendant. Peckham signed this incisor-
andnm on receiving the bill.
The memorandum, which was an acknowledgment
on the part of Peckham that he had received the bile
to get it discounted, was pot in, but not read, on an
objection taken by. Mr. CHITTY, that it was not on a
stamp, and was an engagement for the payment of
money.
The witness proceeded—l beard it stated that the bill
was given to Peckham in order to get it discounted for
the defendant. Peckham gave no value for it at the
time. On the 3d of August I accompanied the de-
fendant to Mr. Jackson's house in Holborn. I heard
the conversation between Jackson and the defendant.—
Jackson said that his surprise at a man of Peckham's
character having got a good bill, caused him to call on
the defendant to know whether it was his genuine ac-
ceptance. He said that he bad bad to settle some other
transactions for Peckham, to save him from disgrace,
at the request of his mother. He stated that Mr. Horne
need not apprehend any thing unpleasant, for as the bill
was on a receipt stamp, he should not think of molest.
tog him for it. There was an agreement made between
the plaintiff and the defendapt to meet the following
day. I attended with the defendant the next day. The
plaintiff said that he had tried every means to fad Peck-
ham. but could not. He said that be had advanced
31. 10s. on the bill, and requested the defendant to wait
on Peckham's mother to get the mcney refunded. He
said that the bill, when he got it, was in the hands of a
Mr. Giles; that it had been pledged by Peckham to
Giles 4. aid that he went with Peckham to (files,
Rave Peckhartf SL 10a. to get it apt 4f Giles's hands.
Nothing Wither took place about tin liilf Limn. After,
it was due, keeled on the Plaintiff, who told me that
the thing muirt Poi/take its course, but that if Ole de-
fendant had consented to pay the Sl. 10s. he should
have had the bill.
Cr ospesamined by Mr. Cured-+I am not the clerk
of the defendant; am only his friend. lam an at-
torney's clerk. . . .
Mr. Giles—l live at 31, St. John's-lane, Clerkenwell,
and I am a wire-manufacturer ; Peckhani deposited this
bill with me ; I advanced him one sovereign upon it;
Peckham afterviards' came and received: it from me,
having left me a metal watch ill its stead; at that time
the plaintiff was waiting at the door, aid 'Peckham
handed the bill over to him in my sight.; the plaintiff
asked if tknew where he could get the bill discounted ?:
I told him I thought lie could get it done at Keeling
aid Neck's. whose address I gave him ; he asked me
eihat•money Peckham owed me? I said .51. or 61. He
then saia, that if he could get the bill discounted he
would repay me. He asked Peckham if he was agree-
de? and Peckham said he was.
Gloss-examined—This took place about the end of
Suly.---The notice to prove the consideration given for
the bill was admitted by Mr. CHITTY.
Mr. CHITTY then called the following 'witnesses :
Edward Brown—l am in the employ of Mr. Jack•
son; who is a thane; I know Peckham; Jackson made
clothes for him ; I 'delivered some to Peckham myself
on the 29th cf May—(The witness here enumerated the
articles which he delivered).
Tregar—l delivered on Jackson's account to
Peckbans three hats and a fowling cap on the 22d of
the SOth ofJuly, and on the .sth of August.
• Jobn.Travis—l am the plaintiff's attorney. This bill
irks* into my hands by tl.e plaintiff. On the 24th
Of September-Irmo to the defendant. He called on
mon the 2711::' He said it was an accommodation
bill, „and that it was hard that he should pay for it,
having received no value, and that he thought that was
a good ground of defence. I told him that I would not
arrest him till he had consulted his attorney.
Lordlautsumm, addressing: the attorney; said—
.. You ought not, Sir, to have arrested bins at any time
on this bill." -
Mr. TIMMS shortly replied, contending that the
evidence of the attorney did not touch the defence acal!,
but was perfectly consistent with it.• The evidence of
the other witnesses proved a preexisting debt to this
bill from Peckham to Jackson, but not such a debt as
made a good consideration for it.
' Mr. Crum contended that it was improbable that if
Jackson had meditated a fraud on defendant Horne, he
would have detailed to him such facts as must necessa-
rily frustrate the successful execution of it. He main-
tained that the defence was a fraudulent fabrication on.
the part of the defendant and his witness, and ougl not
to be admitted as a sufficient cause for cutting away
the security of a written instrument. He maintained
' that the consideration which he had proved to have
' been given, for the bill was sufficient to entitle him to
' their verdict.

Lord Tistiwtosti told the Jury,' that if they were of
opinion that the bill in question had been improperly
obtained by Peckham from the defendant, their ♦erdict
must be for the defendant ; but if not, for the plaintiff.
The-Jury iostandy returned a verdict for defendant.
Lord Tatutsansti.--Quite right; Gentlemen.

COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, Wznamemze, Dam 6,
Salop after Miclisekaas Term, before Mr. Juottee Cse.smai _
Lamas v. *MAI:WILT. • •

---- - -----
Mr. Kam.: opened the pleading'. The declaTation