The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-11 00:00:00

SENTr:NCES

George Royle, Thomas Wilkin,and John Linyard, before
convicted of burglariously entering the house of a Mrs.
(heaves, and stealing therefrom a quantity of property, were
brought up for sentence.
The Judge said to Lingard—" You hays been found guilty
upon very clear evidence of breaking into the house of Mar-
garet Greaves, and robbing her of considerable property.
She had employed you, and she reposed such confidence in
you that you almost lived under her roof. You ought, in
gratitude for the employment she gave you, rather to have
given her protection, than plundered her house. The
sentence of the law, provided for this offence, therefore, is,
that you be transported beyond the seas for the term of ten
years. You Wilkin and Royle, though you participated in
this offence with him, were not so culpable. You were
strangers to the prosecutrix, and did not betray her confi-
dence. The sentence upon each of you is, that you be each
imprisoned and kept to hard labour at Kirkdale for the term
of two years."
The Court then adjourned at seven o'clock.

NISI PRIUS COURT.-YESTERDAY

(Before Mr. Justice COLTM AN and a Special Jury.)
GOVERNOR AND COMPANY OF THE BANK OF IRELAND
n. ARCHER AND ANOTDER.—ThiS was an action on a Bill of
Exchequer for £852. lOs., drawn by Messrs. Joseph and
Christopher Schroeder upon the defendants and accepted by
them. The declaration contained five counts, merely varying
the nature of the demand. The plaintiffs were represented
by Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton; the defendants by
Mr. Wortley and Mr. Watson.
Mr. KNOWLES said, this was an action in which the plain-
tiffs sought to recover a sum of about £B5O, which they
alleged to be due to them upon various grounds, which it
would be his business to prove ; but in order to make the
jury understand the way in which this action had arisen, he
must go into detail of certain transactions between the plain-
tiffs, the defendants, and the firm of Messrs. J. and C.
Schroeder, who carried on business as corn dealers at Water-
ford, in Ireland. The defendants, Messrs. Archer and
Daly, were commission merchants at Liverpool ; and in the
early part of last year, 1842, they were instructed by Messrs.
Schroeder to procure a quantity of Indian corn, which they
did upon their giving their acceptances in the usual way. It
amounted to £1,625.55. ed., which Messrs. Schroeder paid for
b; their own acceptance. It was agreed that the defendants
were to he kept out of cash advance—that was to say, Messrs.
Schroeder should give them sufficient money to pay their
own acceptance; and as they had corn in hand, they were to
accept the drafts of Messrs. Schroeder. On the 6th of
April, Messrs. Schroeder drew upon the defendants a bill for
£B5O. ss. 4d., being rather more than half of the invoice
price of the corn : they discounted that bill with the Water-
ford branch of the Bank of Ireland, and the proceeds,
amounting to £847. 14s. 3d., were remitted to the defend-
ants. This bill went through the bank ; it was presented to
the defendants in the usual course, and they accepted it. A
similar course was pursued with regard to the balance,
£770 ; a bill was drawn, the proceeds were remitted to
the defendants, and they accepted it. The position of the
parties at this period was this—the defendants had re-
ceived from Messrs. Schroeder sufficient to enable them
to take up their own acceptances ; but, then, they had
also the whole amount of Indian corn on hand. In
course of time the first of these acceptances became due—
namely, on the Bth or 9th of July. Shortly before it became
due Messrs. Schroeder were reminded that it would have to
be provided for, as the Indian corn had not been sold, and
the defendants were to be kept out of cash advances ; there-
fore, on the Bth of July Messrs. Schroeder drew another bill
upon the defendants, which was discounted in the usual way,
and the proceeds, £846 12s. 3d., were remitted in the usual
way. The other bill of £770 did not require to be renewed,
because by the time it became due the defendants had sold
corn for it, so that it was not the subject of controversy : the
only bill, therefore, that remained between the parties was
that of £B5O drawn on the Stb of July, and which would be-
come due on the 11th of October following. As early as the
26th of September, Mr. Denis Daly, one of the defendants,
was in Ireland; he called at the countine-house of Messrs.
Schroeder in Waterford; and what took place there would be
exceedingly material, because all the points in the case would
depend perhaps upon it. At that time it was apparent that
the corn speculation of Messrs. Schroeder would turn out un-
profitable, for Mr. Daly produced an account current, from
which he pointed out that considerable loss would be incurred ;
and he requested Messrs. Schroeder to advance a certain
amount in cash, and renew the bill which would fall due in
October for the balance, whatever the balance might be.
Mr. Schroeder objected to this, and said it would be better to
renew for the whole of the bill—saying, " I will draw up for
the whole amount, and send the bill to be accepted, and
when you have accepted it 1 will procure cash for it and re-
mit the cash to you, so that you can take up the bill for £850."
This, the jury would observe, was not the course adopted
upon the former occasion : upon the former occasions Messrs.
Schroeder had procured the cash before the bills were ac-
cepted. Mr. Daly objected to this mode on the ground that
it would look odd to the bank in Liverpool, and he said to
Mr. Schroeder, " Send the bill to the bank in the usual
course, and 1 will advise my partner to what has been done."
He (the learned counsel) should have to refer again to this
conversation before he had done, in order to point out what
he conceived to be its legal bearing. Upon the faith of this
assurance, that this bill would be taken care of in the same way
as the other bills, Messrs. Schroeder drew a bill for £852105.
—the bill mentioned in the declaration. That bill was dis-
counted by the plaintiffs iu the same way as the others; and
it would be found that the proceeds, amounting to £847,
were remitted to the defendants, and got into their posses-
sion. This bill passed through the bank like the others ; it
was presented for acceptance in the same way as the other
bills had been; and the jury would find that before the bill
had been accepted—and on the very day when the proceeds
came into the hands of the defendants—the following letter
was written to Messrs. Schroeder :
" Liverpool, Ist October, 1842.
" Gentlemen,—Your favour inclosing the bill for £Bl7
is received, and passed to your credit. Your draft upon us
for £852 lOs. shall be duly honoured. We have no enquiry
for India corn. * * " Pro. ARCHIAR, DALY & CO.
" P. T. FORREST."
This letter (the learned counsel continued) was signed by a
gentleman of the name of Forrest, who, as be should show,
was, at that time, a confidential clerk of the defendants. It
was right, however, to mention—because representing, as he
did, the Bank of Ireland, he meant to keep nothing back—
that after this letter had been put into the post, probably on
the same day, another letter was written by one of the de-
fendants to Messrs. Schroeder, which was certainly some-
what at varianee with the terms of the letter just received ;
and no doubt his learned friend would contend that that
letter nullified the operation of the other. He (Mr. Knowles)
thought, in point of law, it did not, but that would be for
his Lordship to decide. After this bill had been protested
for non -acceptance, and the whole matter had been made
known to Messrs. Schroeder, Mr. Denis Daly, with whom
Mr. Schroeder had had the conversation of the 26th of July,
again presented himself at their counting-house in Water-
ford ; and it would seem from what occurred then that Mr.
Daly had not been made acquainted correctly with what
had taken place on this side of the water, because Mr.
Schroeder placed before him the letters from the defendants,
and he seemed to be surprised ; and he (Mr. Knowles) must
say, also a little ashamed of the conduct of his partner on
this aide of the water. When reminded of the conversation
on the 26th September he admitted that such a conversation
had taken place, and that the proceeds had been remitted
upon a distinct understanding that the bill was to be treated
as the other bills had been. It was material to remember
too, that the letter of Mr. Forrest, in which he said " Your
draft shall he duly honoured," was laid before Mr. Daly,
and Mr. Daly, at that time, neither by word or deed, thought
of repudiating the authority of Forrest. In the end no settle-
ment was obtained. Messrs. Schroeder eventually com-
pounded with their creditors ; and the Bank had now no
resource to look to, but the defendants, for the amount of
the b 11. First of all they declared upon this bill of exchange,
and said the defendants had accepted it, and he would ex-
plain the grounds upon which he should contend that the
act of defendants amounted to an acceptance. He need not
tell the jury that a bill drawn in Ireland upon parties in
England did not require acceptance in writing : it must be a
verbal acceptance—nay more, there must be an acceptance
by the conduct of the parties, if the conduct of the parties
distinctly led to an inference that they accepted the bill.
They must also perhaps be aware that the law requiring the
acceptance of a bill of exchange to be in writing was not of
more than 20 years standing : formerly a verbal acceptance
was sufficient, and it was so treated, and there was no magic
in the written word " accepted," or any thing else which
gave the notion that the bill would be paid when due. Hav-
ing said this much in explanation of what an acceptance was,
he would call attention to what occurred, to show that that
was in point of law an acceptance to the bill, on the 26th of
September, when Mr. Denis Daly held the conversation
with Mr. Schroeder. The learned counsel contended from
the circumstances which then took place, that they would,
in point of la.v, amount to au acceptance, provided the bill
was then in existence ; but, he continued, inasmuch as the
bill was not drawn then his learned friend (Mr. Wortley)
would contend that there could have been no acceptance ; he
would, in fact, evade that conversation altogether by saying
that a bill could not be accepted before it was in existence.
Now whether this was so or not was a moot point in our law ;
itihad more than once been incidentally discussed, but it had
never received any authoritative decision. In America, for
instance, as he knew from a learned work by Judge Storey,
the question was decided; the courts there, held that a bill
might be accepted before it was drawn. In this country,
however, the law was not settled ; therefore, if his case rested
merely upon the conversation referred to, there would still
be a question whether there could be an acceptance of a bill
before the bill was in existence. But besides what occurred
on the 26th September, he should contend there was a direct
acceptance of this bill by the letter written on the let of Oc-
tober, from the terms of which letter he should also contend
that Mr. Forrest, as the agent of the defendants, had clearly
authority to accept. This letter was laid before Mr. Daly
at the subsequent interview with Mr. Schroeder, in Ireland,
and he did not for one moment affect to say that Forrest had
no authority. He should also contend, on the other counts,
whatever might become of the acceptance, that still Mr.
Schroeder was made an agent of the defendants to procure
the money which was remitted to them. Therefore they
were liable as for money had and received for the use of the
plaintiffs. On one or other ground, he contended, there
could be no doubt of the defendant's liability to pay this
money

The letters referred to and the bills were then put in and
read ; after which Mr. Jacob Schroeder was called, and he
deposed, in considerable detail, to the circumstances as
opened by Mr. Knowles. In his cross-examination by Mr.
Wortley, the witness said his firm, through the badness of
the corn trade, had been obliged to compound. They paid
their creditors one shilling in the pound, and a considerable
balance was yet dne from the firm to the defendants.
Mr. Henry D. Grant, manager of the Bank of Ireland at
Waterford, produced the bill in question.
Mr. Charles John Tyzack, corn-broker in Liverpool,
proved the handwriting of Mr. Forrest to the letter of the
Ist October.
The JUDGE asked Mr. Knowles whether he should prove
any authority in Forrest to accept ?
Mr. KNowt-ms replied, he should rely at present upon the
letter of October Ist, which had not been repudiated.
The JUDGE said that would not be sufficient; especially
as a letter had been received from the partner of Mr. Daly
the same day, which did not mention the bill.
Mr. KNOWLES admitted that, but observed that Mr. For-
rest's letter was written before that of the partner.
The JUDGE.—Yes; but the party cannot be bound with.
out distinct proof of authority. If that were so, amen might
be emninitted to an indefinite extent by his clerk.
Mr. KNowLes thought the phrase of the letter showed
authority.
The JUDGE held that that was not sufficient; but,:at the
r e s. Mr.
ow
t EKnowles,
ssaid
i ,ewhoe t u
izok a
then,
eo no
endeavourote of the
Mr. strengthenint
the case by calling Mr. Forrest.