The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-02-26 00:00:00

TITS STAIISSTAAS.

rause the mariners were rot antit'ed 40 wage, ashes._
preformed the whale /royale, and because foreign sailors
might be hired iet a cheap rate to navigate the vessel ow
her voyage home. To shield seamemfrone this evil, the
statute prohibited, In the most positive terms, the leaving
of any sailer at a foreigu port by the captain of a wee-.
chant vessel. The defendant had taken Clarke and Mer
ris on board at Bristol, but at Cienoa had refused to a'-
low them provisions, in order to compel them to leave
the ship. They were willing to go if the captain would
pay them their wages, but he refused to do so; and
while they were gone aslic.re to obtain provisions, he set
sail aitheut them. 'flee British consul provided for
them while they remained, secured them a passage home,
and passed them to the Navy Board, by whom this pro-
',canon was directed. A similar indictment had been
tried three years ago, and the Admiralty thinking it of
great importance, bad caused the proceedings to be print-
ed, and had ordered a copy to be placed in the office of
every British consul.
't he case was proved by the two seamen, Morris and
Clarke.
The defendant made an address to the jury, in which
he complained that the tailors had rut done their duty as
he expected, but did hot apply his observations to the
material part of the charge.
The jury found the defendant gritty. He was corn-•
milted to the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsca,
having been brought up in custody of the gaoler of Li-
verpool.
The Lone CIIIEV JUSTTCE expressed his hope that the
defendant world be brought up for judgeteat as early as
possible in the term, that his previous imprisonment
might not be unnecessarily I.rotrac'ed.
HALL V. SMITS.
This was an action by the bearer against the maker of
ten Southampton one-pound bank notes. At the trial
before Mr. Justice Burrougb, at the last Assizes for the
county of S..uthaterpten, a verdict was found fur the
plaintiff. subject to the opinion of the Court as to the
several liability of the defendant on the notes in question.
This was a case of very considerable importance to
country bankers. The defendant was member of a bank-
ing firm at Southampton, and the question was whether
lee was liable to be sued alone on the notes, which were in
the following form:—
" I promise to pay the bearer, on demand, one pound,
value received.—Suuthampton, thp 24th day of March,
ISIS—For W. Smith, W. P. Smith, and W. B. Taylor,
" Was. SMITH."
Mr. SELWYN, for the plaintiff, contended that the de-
fendant, though he might be jointly liable with his part.
arts upon these notes, vet there could be no doubt that
he was also severally liable, inasmuch as the words " I
promise" imported a sevetal undertaking to pay the
money. He cited several cases analogous to this in sup-
port of his argument.
Mr. BAYLY, on the other hand, insisted that the form
of the notes only rendered the defendant liable jointly
with his partners, inasmuch as he signed the notes for
himself and his partners, and consequently. they were
only joint undertakings. He urged the universal opi-
nion u hich had long prevailed is the mercantile world,
that the person elm atgoed notes of this description for
and on behalf of himself sod partners, never could be
considered as severally liable. The decision of the
Court in fayeer of the plaintiff In this case, could not
but produce an effect as to the liability of country bank-
ers, which was never yet contemplated. If the Court
should hold the deft ndant to be severally liable upon
these noses, he saw no reason why Mr. Huse, the Cashier
of thsßanls of England, might not be personally liable
for the amount of every slate issued by the Bank, hum-
touch as every bank note commenced with the welds
" I promise," thereby importing a personal ander-
eghigg.—Considering. therefore, the momentous effeel
which such a decision might produce, he trusted the
Court would pause before tney decided that the defendant
was severally liable.
Mr. SELWYN was rot heard in reply—
The Court being clearly of opiniou that the defendant
was severally, as well as jointly, liable upon these uotes.
The notes imported, front their very language, a per-
sooal uatcrtaking. It seas unnecessary to decade that
the defendant could make his partners severally liable,
although there was JO doubt that he could make them
liable jointly. It was by no means clear that even Mr.
Ham.. as Cashier of the Bank of England, was nut per-
sonally liable upon the roses issued by the Governor and
Company of that I nvitution; but, happily there had never
been any occasion yet for raising that question. [low-
ever, this cave was mainly distinguishable from that.—
Here tire defendant was a partner, and undertook for him-
self and partners,—butthere, Mr. Huse wholly undertook
as an Agent for a Chartered Company. There was one
very. good reason why the member of a banking firm,
issuing notes of this thscription, should be held severally
liable, namely, the difficulty to which a plaintiff might
besolsjected in proving the partnership and ascertaining '
before hand alto the members of the firm were. On
grounds, therefore, boils of policy and law, judgment
ought to be given for the plaintiff.
Judgment tor the plaintiff.
THE KING P. BROWN AND WHITEHEAD.
This was an indictment against the defendants for a i
conspiracy to defraud Sir Cohn Campbell of a sum of '
60411.
The trial of this case lasted from two in the afterooon
until past nine in the evening. The prosecution was
conducted by Mr. SCARLSTT, Mr. DILNMAN, and Mr.
Cuawonu, and the defence of Whitehead bottle Solicitor
thoend, Mr. 6unxite, and Mr. Aaouvaus. The defend-
ant Brown did not appear.
The following is an outline of the ease:—Mr. Brown
was a clergyman of Essex,Vicar of Little Clackton, near
Colchester, end the defendant, Mr. Whitehe .d, was a
money agent, brought up in the office of Mr. Howard. In
October 1819, Mr. Whitehead applied to Mealirs: Peoli
and Watkins, Attorneys of Lincoln's inn, to:seise a sum
of 6 0004 for Mr. Brown, if they had any client who
would advance the money by way rif annuity. He stetted
that Mr. Brown was the son of a gentleman of tank, the
Provost of Aberdeen College, from whom be had large
expectancies, that lie had married the daughter of a Mr.
Cole, of Clackton, in Essex, from whom he likewise ex-
pected a large fortune; that his Vicarage was worth
4001. a year; that he had the donative of St. Osyth,
worth 2001. a year ; and that be had a copy boll estate of
the manor of Great Holland, which hisfather-in-law bad
given him, which woaltifeteh him from 13 to 14,00 W. ;
bathe made it a sinegita BOX that the CONatOIIS should
not he searched, because another son-iinflitw of Mr. Cole
was Steward of the manor, and his father-in-law would
by that means know that he Max raising money, and
might in consequence disappoint his expectations. But
Mr. %Vhitelleart said that he himself had searched the
Court Hulls, and that he had (wind Mr. Brown's Title
to he quite satiscactoq. After some negociation, an ab-
stract of Mr. Brott n's title deeds, together wilt re-
gniar attested copies of the admissions and surrenders,
aere prodneed by lira, Whitehead, stewing the title to
be clearly in the fatter. lie also offered to produce au
'affidavit of Mr. Brow o's other means of giving security
for the proposed. loan. Being deceived by these repre-
sentations, Messrs. Peoli and Waldo* did not search the
' Coup Rolls, and 11,:vitctl their client, Sir C. Campbell,
to advance the money, which lie did accordingly, and
the annuity deeds w. re executed. It turned out Chat the
whole of these doTtunitnts were forgeries ; that. Mr.
'Blown had no estate in Orem Holland ; that the e.tate
was the property of his Gann-in-law ; that his living at-
Little Ciorkton, instead of bring worth 4001. *year, was
-worth no more than •JlOl. and that Isis donative of
'St, Osytlo.pru ;need only twenty:pawls .a .year. It ap-
lbatllr. Brown-bad aliconded and was gone to

Auirtgen. During thivertneartiou both defamikeits were•
frequently together.
The defence set up for Mr. Whitehead "S alit he
binwetf hirf b• en deceived by Mr. Brown, snit *as dr-
laded Into a belief that be was possessed of t'. .e mean,
above.twertrioned. A long correspondence betvreri the
riefentiasta was read in evidence to support this groom! of
&fusee.
The finite JUSTICE charged the Jury, that the (tura-
s on for them was whether Air. Whitehead was knowing-
ly treivy to .liese fraudulent reorerres'ations. for if he
nu deceived leinvelf by Mr. Brown he would not be
within the scope of this indictment.
The Jury ininiediately found belt defendants Guilty.