Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-03-01T00:00:00

Thi.s was an action on a bil of cxchangefor i71. hs. &d accepted by the det'endants. Mr. Suy R NEY, for the plaintift, in thefirst instance, mercly ad. duced proof of the handwriting of the partes to the bill. Mr. SCA IL.ETT, for the defendant, aic.this action was defended hy desire of Mr. Everett, who had the real *ropertv in the bill, and from whom it had bcen stolen. Hlc shouldprove that the bill had been stolet, and thus should throw on the plaintiff the burden of provi.;g that he took it under circurnstancesfree from all suspicion. It was proved that the bill in question was, on the 20th of August 1ast enclosed with two other bills in a parel, and addressed to Mr. Philliiiore, of Birmingham. On the 2ist of August the parcel arrived at Birmingham; but the bills had been subtractcd. Mr. U(R'REY thlen ?roceeded to adduce (vidence toshow that Alr. Gill obtained the bill bondtfidl, and gave viuc for it. For this pur- pose, he called John Fenthan, who said-I a m the nep;new of the plaintiff, wbo is a bill-broker in Lotubard-sticet. I assist in carrying on his busi- ness. The bill in question was brought to ts to discount on the 21st of August, by a man whose namie I did n(t know, but whose facc was familiar to m.e. I at first declined distounting it, saying I did not know the parties. Ile said he had brought us bankers' bills be- fore, and if we would nmake inquiries, we siould find thc parties re- spectalhle. He left the bill, and I proceeded to make inquiries, and fdund the parties were respectable. lie returned in two hours: I then told him to endorse thc bill, and I woald give him the money. He endorsed it in the name of " Charles Taylor," and we discounted it tbr Spsrkes and Co., of Exete-, and sentat to their town bankers; Mlessrs. Hankey having written on it " if necessary, apply at 42, Lomlbard-street," my uncle's office. It was afterwards returned, and I paid it. I did not endorse the bill, but made the menmorandum, as is usual on similar occasions. Cro,s.exarnined hy Mr. SCARLETT.-I have lived six years with ,Mr. Gill. He was out of town at the time of the transaction. I did not know the nanme of the person who brought the bill, nor did I inquire his address. AI'e searched afterwards, and found we had not got it. HEe called between nine and ten o'clock. We dis- count for other persons as well as Sparkes and Co., and therefore it was in our pleasure to appropriate it to what account we pleasedIafter ,ve had discounted it. 1 learned, on inquiiry, that Mlessrs. tubitt were respectable ; it is not usual to ifiquire for t1he drawer. We liid not inquire about M:r. Taylor, nor scarch, before discounting the bill, fo. hlis namiie; it is not usual to do so. We did not ask how he came bv it. I was not out five minutes myself inquiring. illr. Gill was at riis timne in Scotland; lie returned in September. The ma- nagemrent of his business was left to me, I ami 25 years of age a considerable suto of motnly was left at my disposal. I knew the feattires, but not the namc 'of the party : that is the ease with many olfe C' customers. I have never secn Alr. Taylor since. No othcr bills were offered me at the same timc. Re-examined.-There are many customuers whose names Afr. Gill does not kinowv. I hadZ not the least suspicion. I gave the full money. except the discount and two shillings for commnission. Mr. SCARLET'r addressedi the jury on this evidence, and con- tended that the plaintiff liad taken 'the bill under circumstances which deprived him of his right to recover. No one charged himn or hlis nephlew with knouwing that the bill was stolen ; but he ha(l not acled wvith due caultion respecting it. If he thought it iecessary to nazLc inquiries rerpecting the acceptor, ought he not also to have inquired a" to the person who brought him the bill, and with whose very name he was not acquiainted - Surely it wvas not right that busines should be transacted in the manner described bv the plain- tif 's nephew_that bill.brokers should take bills of persotis whom they did not know and thus afford a facility for the coinmission of crime, by keeping a shots where stolen hills might be discounted without intuiry. As thseplaintiffhad Chosentoconduct his business in this wea, he must bsear the risk which he had incurred by his want of caution'. (ne of the Jury begged to know if Mr. Feltham had taketi the nimtber of tihe notes which he paid for the bill, atid received an answer in the negative. Mr. G1uit:sEY, in reply, observed that the greatest want of cau- tion was in the conduct of Mr. Everett, wlho had sent the bill to a Eistance endorseti in blank- The LORtD CHitEF' JUSTICE.-Howdo we know that he did so? Thosc who will steal uwill perhaps do soniething else. M.r. G;URNEY said, that many a iman who would steal a note from a parcel would hesitate by forgery to subject himself to a violent deatth. Some nersonis thoug'ht that capital punish- n ent did not deter tren' from crime ; but long experience had tatught hlim the contrasrv. Ile contended that the real question in this case was, did the plaintiff take this bill bo60a fide and give va- [ue tor it 'r If lic did-and that lie did could not be questioned-he was enttlded to recover. To hold the contrary, would betray an ig- :orance ot the manner in which business was usually transacted, and would check the free circulation of negotiable securities, to the reast preijdice of the intercsts ofcomnierce. In the case of " Law- ,on v. A'cston," 4 Espinasse, 56 where a bill for 5001. had beeii ost or stolen, and afterwards (liscounnted bv bankers for a person w*hom they did not know, Lord Kenvon liela that there was no de- 'cnce to the action, observing, " If there were any fraud in the ransaction, or if-a bone ide consideration had not been paid for the ull by thlc plaintif's, to be sutrc they could not recover; but to adopt .hc principle of the defence to the t'ull extent stated, would be to pa- ahyzc the circuilation of all the paper in the cou.ttrv, andi, with it, all ts comnmerce." The presetnt case was nsudi less favourable to the lefendant. because the amiount of the bill was smialler. IThe LOItD CHIiEF JUSTICE said the question which lie propos- ti to leave to thc juty, was, whether the bill was taken under cir- titmstances whiilt ought to have awdkened suspicion. In the mode )f discounting this particular bill there was nothing peculiar; but in :he general course in which Mr. (ill's business was conducted, there 6vwas mnuch worthy of their consideration. It appeared that he was n the habit of discounting bills for parties whose namss he d}id rfot ,now; and who might, therefore, endorse them in fictitious names writhout fear of detection. Vhat would the jury say if they saw a soard posted um near theRoyalExchange,announcing that " bills are liscounted heie, atid no names asked of those whs bring them ?" Dn the one side, it was right to take care that no unnecessary obsta- r1es vwere placed in the way of negotiable securitiesg but, on the ,ther thicy should take heed not to sanction opportunities for crine. T he Jury retired for three quarters of an hour, and then found a rcrdict for the (Icfendant. COUTRT OF KING'S BENCH, WISTMINSTER, FEB. 28. CILL V. CfTTITTr v\n --,-