The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-08-25 00:00:00

-
•

-
John Ste !Pori was a clerk of the defendant's, and re-
membered Mr. Henry bringing a hank note of 1,000/. to
their house in done, 1822; he was in the frequent habit of
,ii.emont'ng with them, and in the instance of this bill,
Henry salti it was for a person who lodged in his house,
whirl, was called the American Tavern. One qnarter per
vent. was the charge in Liverpool for giving small notes of
any kind in exchange for largeones. Henry said he should
wish the defendant to divide the commission, as he (Henry)
meant to have some profit by it. It was in consequence of
aat that the defendint agreed to take only one-eighth per
rim., if Henry was satisfied to receive in the discount part
Fills and part cash. This was agreed to, and eight bills
were Oven, the interest of which for the time they had to
Inn. was allowed to Henry at the rate of five per cent. The
commission on the discount was 255. On the same day,
they remitted in course of post. the 1,0001. note to Messrs.
Williams and Co. London. Witness made a regular entry
of the remittance in their book. Two of the bills which
were given in payment to Henry were returned diabonoured,
ant were afterwards paid by the defendant.
Cross-examined by Mr. Scaenerr.—lt was in their day
honk the entry was made. They had, of conrse, ledgers
and other hooks. It was not their practice to enter the
-''tails of money paid out, nnless it was to a customer.
Hail heap with the defendant for 6 years. Mr. Henry was
a customer, and they used to discount bills for him. Henry
'kept a tavern; witness thonght he had been in it, and nas
n.'t ashamed of it. He went there to desire Henry to attend
this trial, and he did not know that the tavern was one Ire-
(rented by the commonest sailors and Jews; he had heard
nnthine disreputable of the house, nor did he know that
Henry had been insolvent. Witness could not say what
onantity of gold coin was paid in the discount. He be-
lieved that Henry was, besides the business of his tavern,
a slopreller, but could not say whether slops were publicly
exposed for sale, or notified as being on sale from the win-
dow. Witness had been in the habit of seeing bank notes
for 1,0001.
Re-examined.—Five notes of 1,000/. have passed through
leis hands in one (lay. The defendant bad never had any
other dealings with Henry as a banker, except in the way
of discounting
Isms Henry examined by Mr. Sergeant CROBI, after be-
ing sworn on the 01(1 Testament-Lit was his handwrit-
ing that lie now saw on the bark of the note shown to
him (the 1,0001. note.) He received it from a Mr. Hughes,
a merchant, who hail lodged in his house. In the month
of November before this transaction, lie (Hughes) was at
his house, before he took his pass ege to America. He asked
witness to procure a vessel for him, as he was acquainted
with a number of the American captains. Hughes remained
at his house for three weeks at that time, and gave him the
I,COII/ bank note to get exchanced, as he said he wanted to
purchase some goods to Labe to America. 'Witness told him
that the note being for so large an amount, lie should have
to pay a commission for it, and in answer to his question,
respecting the rate of commission, witness said he thought
it would be one-quarter per cent., unless, perhaps, that be-
ing a note of the. Bank of England, they might exchange
it for one-eighth. Witness went first to Mr. James
Aspi nail's to get the exchange, but he had not so much cash
at the instant, and that was.the reason he went to the de-
fendant's. The letterset first .aid he had not bank-notes
to spare for exchanging so large a sum ; but at witness's
stizerstion, he said lie had promissory notes, and lie would
give they, in the payment, allowing the, interest for the
time they had to non, antrthat they would answer equally
as well for Mr. Hughes, in purchasing his goods for the
American market. The defendant, after examining the
IS (HI!. bank note, and saying it was a good one, took out
his'porkcrlrook and rdesired witness to make a selection
from the hills which it contained. He did so, and the bills
amounted to 7101., and he received the remainder in cash
and bank notes.
Cross examined by Mr. BnouommAsr.—Witness got the
balance, 258/. in cash and notes ; there might be about
220/. in bank notes, and about 30 in guineas; there might
be one or two 201. notes; will not swear that there was not
a•lol.—there might be; there might be a 301.; witness
changed some of the notes for doubloons, not to his know-
ledge; it was not a '5O. Mr. Hughes went down aboard
his-.hip with his portmanteau—witness sells cluthes—Cheap
CI. the is on leis board—no old do, do, do. (Yon know
the cry. said Mr. lironeloam.) Witness,-1 know it now,
but I never sold old clothes. Mr. Aspinall, to whom the
se-istess first took the note, was the person of that name who
failed some years ago.as a banker; he is now a bill broker;
—his place of business was about a quarter of a mile from
that of the defendants. There were two eminent banking
houses nearer to the witness in Water Lane than the de-
fendaut's.
Mr. Scsrmerr, in rising to reply, said, that his learned
Mend bad thought proper to charge him with a studied
silence upon part of this singular case, and with passing
loosely over the rules of law as applicable to the questions
of currency between man and man. Now this charge was
misapplied, and the Court would do him the justice to be-
lieve. that he ors not a man to waste the public time by
dwrliing 'lron distinctions, with Which every than in
trade must be supposed to he perfectly conversant. Indeed
his learned friend load been rathefguilty of suppression ; for
• in the very case which he had quote'', "Miller and Race,"
won!eh be found adtlit'onal expressioEs of Lord Mansfield
• beyond those which his learned friend had maintained ; for Lord
Mansfield had there said, that although an innkeeper might
in the way of business exchange a note for a robber who had
just stolen it on the highway, yet if from the circumstances
there was no reason to suppose him to be free from any
collusion or. suspicion in the transaction, or knowledge of
the theft, he would be entitled to retain the money, for be
was necessarily exposed to receive in payment whatever
stoney strangers of respectable appearance thought proper
to tender him in the way of his business, and Lord Mans-
field's words were—" Had it been a 1,0001. note, for instance,
instead of the notes ordinarily in circulation, then indeed the
complexion of the case would be altered." Here then was that
very exception, here wastbel,oool.note, and covered with every
degree of suspicion. Had that note been tendered by a re-
spectable person, who might have taken it in the due course
of business, then it would-be different. But Imre was a note
which bad throughout the country been advertised as lost
or stolen, and here was a man appearing with it at a bank-
er's, covered with every suspicion respecting his property
in it. Did the defendant know Henry, or did be not? If
he did, how came he to lull his suspicions? If he did not,
how came he to take such a note from a stranger, and keep
so singular an account of the details of the transaction?
Upon the latter point there was much to be said. What
consideration bad the defendant given for this Bank of
England note of 1,000/. according to his own account ?
He, a banker, had avowed that nobody was present at the
time but Henry and himself—he kept no cash account of his
dealings, to show the precise nature of the monies be paid
and received : the way, forsooth, that he regulated his cash
account, was not by the inconvenient written registry in
books of account; but as it were by putting into one pocket
what he rival ved,and taking out of another what he paid, and
perhaps on the Saturday in each week striking a balance be-
tween thetwo pockets, and they were to be told this on the part of
• man who averaged en amount of 400,0001. annlially in his
banking account in London. The Jury would, if the
statement before them were true, see a motive for so much
studied obscurity ; it was convenient for the suppression of
unpleasant dealings which were not fit to be disclosed.—
The clerk bad said that at the defendant's the practice was
• to enter all notes down to 201. Henry admitted that be
believed be was paid one or two of 201. where, then, was the
entry of them ? If that were forthcoming, then might be
traced the endorsements of Hughes, the notable American
merchant,and his man of business, re. Henry. But would
any man in his senses believe, that Hughes, if there existed
such a man, would pay one quarter or one eighth per cent.
to get a Bank of England note exchanged—and for what?
For promissory notes of private hands; and this, too, wen.