The Statesman.
London, England, 1813-06-12 00:00:00

Ir

Plaintiff, who had been since indicted for felony, and
found guilty.
R. Farrutt, swore that he had been cashier to
Plaintiks for 12 s ears. The Defendant had beta a
customer for five or six years ; credit had been given
TI D.,f,,odant's pass-book for three several sunset
amounting in the whole to 6301., which sums had never
been paid to Plaintiffs. He stated, that the regular i
A:nurse of banking was, if money were paid by a
person himself, or his servant or clerk to enter it Is
the pass-bo-k," cash:" if paid in by 'third persou, ,
t• enter such person's name. The sums in questient
were entered as cash." The pass-book was copied
from ledger. The money, when paid, was entered is
the waste-hunk, then in the cash-book, and then in the
- ledger ; the earns in question were etitesea in the ledger
in the hand-writing of Hammond, but not in any of the
other books. Defendant applied to witness about
his having lent money to Hammond. He mentioned
that he was in the habit of lending money to Ham-
mond, who then owed him 4001.. Witness told him
Ire was very blameable In lending money to Ham-
mond, advised him not to do so in future, and to get
repaid as soon as he could. He did not tell Plaintiff
till some months after, but he did it before Hammond
was committed, that he was so much in debt to
Defendant. Defendant had told him that Ham-
mond had purchased the lease of a house, abd
was about to be well married ; witness supposed
that it would set him right. Defendant had
been examined as a witness at the trial of Ham.
mood. The Bank always made np the pass-
books when they were brought for that put*
pose, and they required them to be brought for
that purpose. Hammond had been appointed by the
R: intiff to keep the ledger, during the absence of a
person of the name of Gattye. He communicated
to Defendant that he had drawn great sums of money
which had never been paid in, as soon as the error
was discovered. There had been deficiencies caused
by Hammond in 1811 ; they were not discovered till
1,812, when notice was given. There were six
other acc.:unts erroneous, through the conduct of
Hammond. The whole amount of the deficiency
cauiesl by Hammond was 2,7001., 1,8311. of which
was in the account of the Defendant.
Mr. Ilazlewood, attorney for • Plaintiff, swore
that he called upon Defendant, to explain how he
had paid to Hammond the sums for which Hammond
had given Defendant credit : Defendant poiuted out
ditlereot drafts and bills of exchange on the debit
side of the pass-book, drawn 'in favour of a person
of the name of Plomer, and some in the name of
Pourer, which Defendant had given to Hammond,
and which amounted to 6301. Defendant gave wit-
ess same of the drafts, but stated, he bad destroyed,
el, reit, and the Bills of Exchange. He said, he
had not credit for a greater sum than he had paid.
He was not able to show vouchers for the identical
sums to hip credit, although he bad attempted. He
told witness, that he thought Hammond had paid in
the money, and on that account he gave the drt ts
an 1 notes. Hammond was indicted for stealing t o
of the notes, which had been given in exchange for
tine of the checks. He said Hammond's name was
not on the bills, but he gave no particulars as to the
parties to the bills.
Defendant called uo witnesses.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, be thought that it was
satisfastorily proved, that the payment had not been
Prilta. Defendant had admitted that it was an arti:
tieial account, as neithe'r he.nor his clerk had paid
in those sums for which he had credit as cash. It
Was for the Jury to say whether the Plaintiff or the
Defendant had been the cause of the over-credit
having been given.
'rue Jury retired for about half an hour, and then
brought in a verdict for Plaintiff— Damages 6301.