Court Of Common Pleas, Fr...
(Sittinze' iot Banezo. ) milts case, wlilchi has bNen very ftrequently before the public with. in the last four years, came on this nlorring for further argament. We have already given the details of tle circumnstatices out of which this action arose, but as the question on which it turnasis one of very considerable importance to the public, a brief outline of them here niay not be unnecessary. Qlr. Davis, the plaintiff, bad in the year 1820. and foraconsidera. ble time befoie that period, 10,C001. stock (3 per Cents. we believe), and 178L. IUsg Annusities, with asme other Government secaai1g hirperoty, and statiding in Irisnsatue ins the books at the anrk o.f brother, was taken into custody on g charge of a forgery for a smelj Blum. He wage auinedonceand ren=ded totheWiltspar.streetComp.~ ter for a farther examiination. While in.ctistody thiere, his brother (the itiff) called on him, and then learned, for the first tice, that tr; property in the funds haLd been transfe.-red from his name by J. Davis, by meanswof a.forged powerofattomey, and that the! sunswhichhe had'received for athad-been ialready dissipated. The pL-intifi was thunderstLruck- at thiz intelligence-, <and exclaimed that his -braiher had made him a beggar. He, however, finding that- J. Davis w.aB already in custody on a capital chate for ani;tker forge. ry, did not Make any communicaton on the subdect to the Bank of England. In the course of ashort time after thi-s' (we believe in the end' of,.that or the begnning of the nezt moanth) 51r.;J. Davi-s escapled fromn prison, get oatt of the country, and has sincez been residing, we believe, in France or America. Before be went, he sent to the plaintiff' a draught on his bankers for whatever funds stco t thiere in his namne, but these turned out to ba only a few pfound;, whilch the plaintiff' received. From that time to, the following Septemnber, the plaintiff' enade no claim on the Bank-,. or any communication repecting his brother'seonduct. In Septem.. ber be called for thie aoneunt of his dividends, which the Bank re- fused to pay. Hie then brought his action. The Rank defended it, on the ground that the glitiff' had adopted thec trunsfer made by his brother, and had thereby barred his right of action. Upon thLis: trial the jury found a verdict foor the defendants. This verdict was afterwards set. aside and a new trial gated. On the second trial the j'ury returned a Special. vcrdc..tiat ha litf adnt made any cDmmuliati~on to the Ba-nk of tue forgery u-nta SDme mnonths after he became acquainted with it, but that there was no ovideace before them to show that he had any know-. lede o orPsric baein in, the fo1ery at the time it was com- mitted. This ye 'ei-t was afterw1f=d turned into a special ease: for the judgmnent of the Court; and the main question for their deci.. Si"n"as whether the plaintiff' had in any, degree, an~d how far, for- fited his claim uPon the Bank by hi, conduct after he becarneac.. quainted with the forgery. it wasargued ontwo days8throeeor foart termst ago, and the oAl r no eigten full, wished to heaLr farther argument, upon It whnte orJugssould be present. i51r. Sergeant VAUHA rcee this morning to argue it for- the7plainta.f Afe th edn atculars of the tranisaction, ther learned Sergeantobevdthtihi opinion the Court must have been influencdinoergfutr arguments upon i:, bye feel.- ing of the great magiueoftesae at issue, rather than by any- dsfEculty ia the apj ainftepiciple of law which applied to- it. No doubt thequsina oef very considerable importanace.. There was neG an w ihehrav of E~ngland or foo,eigner7 who pousseid any property in the ud who was not interested in its de.- cision. Howeveir, though te question war, of this vast Importance in its results, still it appeared to him as one involvipg no great legal. .difflcolt. He bad yet to learm what prnciple of law 't was uponi which t 'e plainri e right to reeceive his bsvide;u1swaaforfeited. Eere, was an action founded onuby aof dut committedTythedrfenm in transferei~ag certain gtock whichi stoed In the plaintiff's name- without his authority; but supposing that this stock was notlei- transferred, or not conceived to be transferred, still the B3ank we baund to pay the dividends upon it. Lordl Cnief Justice kiEST.-Thait is wvhat is sought in the second and fourth counts of the pleadings. Alr. Sergeant VAUGHA-N here stated the nature of the several counts in the pleadings. The qustion lirst to be considered was simply, whether he couldi satisfy the Court that the defendaneshiad been guility of a breach of their duty in refuingm to allow the plain.. tiff to tranisfer, or in refusing to pay 'hi the dividends. In order to examine it in this light, it might not be unnecessary to examine what were the relative riglhts of the parties to the record. The learned sergeant then proceeded to state, that the Bank by several acts, of Parliament stood in the situation of trustees for the public. They received fronm the Treasury the amount of the divi- dends accruing on the various kinds of stock created by Govemnment, and were bound to pay over those dividends whoat called for, to the parties whose names were.duly placed on their books, as the owners ofrportions ofthese securities. Here it might be proper to ohierve, that theplaintiff stood, by the admission of the defendants them.. Solees, on their books, as the proprietor of certain public securities and they were thus precluded from discussing what right had paz%sai tro him by the original transfer. It was admitted that he was pro- prietor of those accarities at and before the comnmercemnent of, the present action. Whatthon was the duty of the defendants? Th'Eey were theagents of the public, paid for the performance of a c-ertain duty, and a delicate and a difficult orne he admnitted it to be. They were allowed a sum of dIOL per million, for thus receiving and pay.. ing out the dividendls on the public debt. liord Chief Justice BEST-YOU will find, brother Vaughan, that sum has been reduced by, a recent act of Parliament. However, your argument is the saniue, whatever he thec SUM paid. Ar. Sergeant VAUGsAaa agreed that the sumi they received by way of remuneration for their trouble made no differenace in the point he was urging. Standing as the Bank did as agents for the public, they were answerable for anyv negligence which might occur ini the execution of their duty as such. -_ ore were Many eases in fthe beaks whbere this principle was most cecarly laid down, that the Bank were not only liable for any negligence in refutsing to mnake a trans- t'er, but for less occasioned by any unnecessary clelay ina nllowing such transtier to be mnage after it was demanded. BY one of the acts of Parliament to which he had alluded, books were to be kept at thte Bank for entering the names of thfose who became hiolders of par- ticular pertions of stto'k ; and lay the samne act books were also to be entered, in whtich all transfer or assignments, of such s-tock were to be entered. The aat stated, that it was thte duty of the perison tranisferring stock, ta enter his wtame in the hook, by him. self, or by his attorney, acting with authority given under his hand and seal, and' that the signature of such party to that stuthori'ty should be attested by two witnesses It Was ex- pressly stated that no transfer of st~ick should be miade otherwise thian as heredirected ; and rhat if it was maadcotherwvise,it shiould be unlawfutl and ofnocefect. Thiisformliad beenenacted in theuact of Gco. I., and coDnthiued in every subsequent act for the creation of istock down to the present timne. He had been thus paraticular in mentioning these circAumstances, because tiey showed the securities with which the Bank were protecred. It was their dluty to see that all these formis were complied with in mnaking the transfer, and if any of them were omitte by their negligence, they were answerable. In fact, the teansfrer made without those requ2sites could be said to be no transfer at all in point of law, and then the stock muss be con. sidered to be still the property of the party in whose name it stood WWo~ suchi transfer war, attemiptedl. Lobrd Chief JustiCe BET-De the Bank make any transfer ? 1Mr. Sergecant VAuGuHAN._It does, miy Lozd. CasrJEF JUtSTICE....NO, I believe it does not make the transfer itself. It only holds the books in which thectransfer ismade. Air. Sergeant V'ATUGH5AN -It permits the- trairefer, my Lord, and then registersi it; but in. so doing it is its duty to see that such trans.. feri is roperly nmade. lii ustice PARaa.-Tbe Bank permits the transfer, and then the whole question comes round to this-how fa- are they liable for aniy improper transfer? IIIr. Sergeant VAUGHAN admitted this to be the question. That the Ba-nk was liable for negligences comnmittedi in the discharge of' its duty, however unintentional, he was prepared to contend. In the case of Sir Richard Sutton, mentioned in Term Reports, an action wa-s brought against the Bank for delaying to imake certain tranatfers of stock. They defended it, on the ground t-hat ithe time was not more than reasnable time to see that thec trawsfer was miade by thr proper authority, as they were bound to use all due diligence to Zsee that an imnproper transfer was njot made. In that case, hiowever, thtere was a verdict a.tst themn for t'ne difference betweenl the -pricer of stock at the time,the trainsfer was required and that in which it was ltiatey mde.Thi, h cotened,was a fiall adusiasionof theprici c fr wichhe as rgung.The negligence-was of a ~ ~tcritio fro thrt Urge inthepresentcease; but still negligece, an the Bnk washeld Uble foir it. ?hic Jutic B~s.-Wsasbecame of that case of Sir MVr. Sergeant V.&uGHAN..-Mly Lord, it has not been fart'nee ar- gued since: it rests as the verdict of she jury left it, and I presume tiie parties have no intention to disturb it. 'Such as it w-as, I c-on. tell dhit maakes for rny argumnent-t.hat if the Bank were liable foe nag.. ligence then, thiey are niot the less liable for negligence, though of aniother kind, att present. Jf ny client has suffered a loss, by the Bank sqffering an inuproper tran'sfer to he made, they are bound now to mnake it good. Indeed, I do not see that I need carry my argu. nient on thig part of the casee any farthier. Lord Chief Justice BEST.-There is, brother Vauighan anetbe- wvay in which this part of the cate may be viewed. 'Was the, transfer a good one ? Did the stork whichi stood in thie plaintiff's namne pass bv that alfleged transfer ? If not, prima facie tbe Banik is bound. to -pay the drvitlend. Air. Justice ItARtI.-The question, as it strikes me, it, how farthis transactfion aan he said to be a legaltrransfer of the plaintiff's right ? If it was a forgery, thecn it could not be a transfer in the manner pre- iscribed 1ky the act of Parliamient, and the property int the stock miuss ronmoin just asit stood before. Mlr. Sergerant VAuGuAN.-..." Just eno, My Lords:z that is rhat I -would contend ; andtfinn yI r tordhtps~i'-otntoaswlrh-mc on iis point,]I do not think lI edt'rouble the Couirt farther an is at present, out wait until I hiear whiat. my learne-d brother shall say to it on thle other side." The learned sergeant'said hie would now proceed to the other partof the ekse. It had been contended that the plaintiff had barred his righit to'bring an action by his condluct subsequent to hisq knowledge of the forgerv...that was, by not inlhrmning the Bank of.- the fact as soton as he 'became acouainted with it. Che question, then, to whichi he had to direct liis fLordslhip's attention was, how tair the right of action was barred by that circumstance. It was -alleged that the plaintiff knew of the forgery six mouths before he informed the Bank of it z but it should also be' borne in mind, that the torgerY hadbeen committed foa a considerable thije beforehe becamre acquaint- ed witli itaend (for that was parr of the verdit.! ofitbe jury) that it was committed altogether withouthis oarticipation or knowledge. Here, itien, arosec this question-..Was thiere ever a time wvhen this right of' action(arisingafterthe forgery) comonscaced, and iftherewasany'iume, whten and how didble forfeit it? IVas it by the concealmeuc ofhils knowledge jaf the facts ? That mighit be. wrong in the plaintiff: it might amount toe anmisprisioni of felony ; buteven ifit wasthatoffenee (atid at' the ut]most it could be no more), still that would be nio rea- son why he should not be allowed his divishends. Let himn be pu- nisbed for that ofeence if' they pleased ; but such Itunishnmentwoultif not extind to afoirfeiture of his propry Irt Was no just janswer to his lietAI ,clAkinato,- ah 0fhad b- e Ien Rult efnarena offence.-- Mrisid unser,ausr:ce kIEay.-The main ouestion for your client is tbis;-This was imy stOck: I did not traisfer it-why are my divi- dends not paid ? Mr. Sergeant VAUGLAa .-This, my Lords, is,ro doubt, the great point; and if your Lordships agree ivithme in this, the other points are but minor one growing oat of it, and.1 need not occu.y much more of your Lordaships' time i .conridering them. Lord Chief Justice BEST..SUppoSe I have anu estate, and that soime, person fbrges title.deeds to it, and that I know it at the time, will that deprive me of my right to sue for any rents ? Air. Sergeant VAUGaAxN..That is, nmv Lord, exactlylthe view 'which .1 take nf the case. I say, the forgery bep aitheoat iny clent's knowledge at the time it was committed, his sr aseqient ac- quaintance with it, and his concedament of that acqruaintance for a nime, did not deprive him of that right 6ver his proTaty whICI tbp forgery could not take away. It is qtite erroneosaIstsbmit, to. sup- pose tiat by the knowledge of thcotdmc, and his silence-with respect to that knowledge, he had adopted his brother's set, and baured his claim. lst us, my Lords, try that question in anotherpoint of OitW Suppose that after my client had heard of the firgery, snd before he menitioned it to the Bank, it hail beconDeknown to other parties1 and That J. Davis had been indicted for it, .would it be helut that the capital offence was purged by my client's .adoptiOn of it? WVould hiis ubsequent assent' do away. with the ca- pitl crime, and be. sufilc'irlt for his Brotlieris release? Most as- suredly it woutld not. Ifhe were proved to have been ignornttt of the crime until after it was committed, his subiequent adoption of the act wVould not be sufficlent to -elease his bro'.bercn his tial frOm its penal consequences. How, then, can it be contended hera; that lie sa far.adoptcd thec act dpgn , as to, bar hiis own right to recover ? nite learedie sergcant then recapitulatcd( th6 chief points of hit' avgu. L~:,nnt, and its eca-cltision contended, that on the principles: df-jtsticti .and public policy, thie Baink *ere boand to miake good to the plain'. tift' thie propr~rtv whichl had 1tood in his naffle, Atna that no 'apt which hehad'done since was sutfficienLt to release thema l4im ilafoib. Mlr. SeIrgeant TADsY apae for the dfnat,and bega by Irstating, that it was erroncous to suppose, as was set forthl in,the first and third counts, that the plaintiff was deprivedt of his stock. Tt was riot on record, nor weSs it proved in law or in fact, that the pIliaitiff haa ever eiensatded that stock, or that it was ever refused. Mr. Justice Bua-stouwxx....Could youi defend the refusing the stock if it had bean demanded? Mlr. Serg'eant TADjny said, It was rather hardl, while he was aTgut- ing the cuse in one point of view, to ptit a supposition whichi formed nso Ptart of if. fie was conotending that there was nothilng in tile ease to wiaititain tile fiRst and thiird counts, as it did not appellir thant the stock had ever been demanded. The Cosrrr'r here intimatea its opinion, that thecre was enough in those counta to include the stock andi profits, and called the learned Isergeant's attention to thoso parts of the pleadings where It was acet Iforth thiat the BaLnk hand reflused to psy the dividends. 16 Mr. Sergeakt TADDY saiti; that on that point he was prepared to co'ntend, thlat unider the circumsatnces the B3ank wras not bound to pay thle dividends, and the conduct of the plainltifbad deprived bim of his remedy. On grouilds of publicr pticv, he thiought they wdTe justified in their refusal. The p aintiff'ad become acquainted with the fact of hisl brother having committed a forger~y, whlich fargery went to deprive him of' his property In this Case, what was his duty towads he Bnk,and tars th'e public ? Undouabtedly it was, that he should- give the earliest informiation in his power to thiose whbo were so much eancernied, in order that the ends of justice might be s-atisfied. Their Iiordships were not now sitting to try the- plain- tiff for a misprision of felony: undoulbtedly if thiey were, the rela- tive situation of. 1im and his brother, the ties of blood, and the at- verity of forcing a man to become the informer against, or thle AC- cuser of, 'its own brother, would have their influence with then, in judging his ease. Dssaiealss elnswihtecs,15i now stood, did not necessaTi y call forth, they- were to look only' at th1e facts as they appeared on the recordt before, them. [flere, then, rwastse plalntitf con~ealing from the Bank a felony which hadt been colurnitted; and thuss, as far as in him lay, deprivi-ni them of any remedy' which theY mnight have against the pa-ty off'endling, oi Of any means of satisfying the putblic justice of the country. Mlr. JUstfce P9Ajsc.....YOU shoufd recollect, brother Taddy, that the brother was faready, in custody when the plaintiff bewame acqusainted 'with the forgery and you cannot mean to contenc: that if the Bank bad been madie acquainted with the fetrgery,-they would have taken means of securing the prisoner more closely so as to pre- vent his c'reape ? It is well known that the Bank do not interfere in the safekeepingof a prisoner against whom they in'ay.t,yean 37r."Sergeat TADDY didI not'niean to press the argum'ent itn that view, but he would contend, that the plaintiff did, as far as lay, itt him, depr'[ the Bank of any remedly which they might hive bad againstIi4brother, by keeping them tn ignforance of theejim7e which had tien commnitted, until long after the brother hadl left the kingdoml. Not only ditd lie do this, but he consented to receive the rermainder of the money iwbich stood In, tie brother's name at -his banker's. Mr. Justice PAux-Thish wai not 'till after the brother went. lie left him the draughit when he was going. AIlr. Sergeant TADOIr then proceed'ed to show, that this as an action on the cuse could not be siupported. Actions on the ease could onlv be mnaintained where the party bringing themn hadl sus- tained an 'irsjury. Now he woutld contend, that Ith defendants were the parties by wvhom the injury was sustained, and not the plaintiff. It had been urged by his learned brotlher (Sergearit Vauighan) that theXpafintiff's right of action having Commenced before his knowlef1ge ofe for cry it could not be batred by any thinig he did subse- quently'. Now lie would shotw, that a right of action might be barred .3 ma'ssubsequent conaduct. In the T'er,n Reports was the Case _1 aawho brought an actioni ainst anothier for seducing awaLy (Isapprenitice; there it was4 heldathat the rman had barred his4 riht by having proceeded against the apprentice hirmself. Now lt the Coutt consider what had been the conduct of the plain- tiff. Helc nonvs the forgery in March. Hie allows tile Bank to pa-y dividends in Apritl ana .1 ay to the parties to whiom the forged trains- fer had been made, and in Septemiber he conies and demands those tery dividends whtich he must know the Bank had paid to othersi, and whicih he mautt also have known thiey would not have paid had theY been apXpris3ed of the forgery earlier, and which lie might have pro- vete ir he pleased. Take, then (continuted the learnCd siergeant), the ca.-e of a forgery of a power ot attorney by my steward. I know that such forgery is committed;, I never niention the fact to him; but the party committing thec forgery gets the money, and after I know this, and more, after I have been in commuitnicAtion wit], the person so forging, I go, when he leaves the country, and dlemand the mioney of mny steward, wvhich I know he has already paid. I ask, my Lords, in such a case (and the pr-esent is just like it), can I maintain any action on thie case for the recovery oformoney from moy steward?I contentd, with all deference, that I cannot; that it wrouldi not be a case whiere I could show any inijury done to me. M1r. Justice F,aul.-! wishr to know, brother Taddy-and I ask for information's sake-can thie Bank refuse to psy the dividends to ,ti;e patties to wham this transfer, such as it was, was md >A r. Sergeant TADDY'.-.My Lord, thec Bankcannoat Create, alnd if it pay to one, it cannot be bsund to pay to bothi. Buityour lordship will see here the extent of thcinjury which the coiiidnt otrthe lain. tiff might occasion to third partiem By his not discover'ing the f'or- gery sooner, he ran thie clhance of compromising the rights of se- veral others as well as the Bank ; and yet, after so many hiad been injured, he then comnes to the Bank to claimi his dividends.i Such factsas these are, my Lords, I submit, wholly insufficient to support ani action like the present. Air. Justice PAax-.31ut does yotir argument, with respect to thea conduct of the plaintiff in allowing the Bank to pay dlividenids to parties to whomn they would not pay them if they hail lenown-of the forgery ooer.-oa4t~ say (suppose the Court to adsnit'1t)79o farther than to the plaintiff's claimi to those parEicular, dividends -which had been so paid ? Would noat lils right of action acenie when the next dividends became due? I put this to you in candour. Air. Sergeant TADDY,-..My Lord, it is rather a delicate situation in which to place a counsel, to leave points thits in.ergument to his 'Andour. But I submit that thiese dividends being paid when tlhe ifht lhave prevented it, his action on the Case will not lie for theni. -,ord Chief Justice BES'rc-Yoa say thiat theset di'idendsdaa pai& losses to the Bank. If this he so, would it not form a ground raising a cross-action on the pArt of thec Bank against thec plaita. rather than one of resisting his claim to anv dividends at all? he bringing of thte cross-action, thut Bank w6uld. prove ita loss. -.Sergeant TADDY did not think that that couirse would be - !aed by the Bank. Thiere was this difrerence between other nd actions ott the case, that the other actions arose ouit of or debt, or somne specific undertaking on both sides ; but tnoni the care arose out of the particular circumstance con. .,,liti it,and coultlonlvbem-aintaincdjwhicreit could be raved tha"t theparty bringing ithad sustained an injuiry. Now in t' ecase before the Court, he thiouehit no suich facts were niade apparenkt The party britiging it lhad done'tic injuiry,and notsuffered it LHewould now co-tic to another point, and he woultd lay dowzi this position, which lie trusted he shouldi be able to c6tablish-he would contend, that where a felony hiail been commnitted, no actoion could be irutintained which indfirectly Orcollaterally aroseout of that felony,until after trial and conviction of the felon or untilpublic justice had heen satisfied. 'Inoillusitrate this p?Aition, tite learned gentietn.tn proccededI tociteseve. ral ca'eswhvre that doctrine had been held. The first was the case of I" Da-wkes v. Cavanagh," in Style, page i46. in that ease, Ca. ranagh had been indicted for breaking tuto the house of Darevkes, sd stealing property to the amount of 2501. ; for thais he was con. ice,and burnmed in the hand. Afterwards. Dawkes brought his aonquare clausrrnifregit;, Cavanagh pleadted not guilty, anti it Was cneded for hirs, that lie hadi alreadv suffered for i~ as a fe. ha;btChief Justice Roll held that tfhe action was good, but t it would not be maintanable if the felony had in thle first in. stsnce not been,prosctd In. Velverton, page ill, was mentionxed the ease of,"igitv Butcher," in which it was held, tht a D wuaster could ntbring an action ror injurv (lone to his servant, atnd haeqcuenlosfhs serics because hie died of the injuries lie adreceived as it was there lheld that the tort had merged in the aurder. TWe learnled sergeant proceeded to cite fseVeral other Cases 't farthier illustration of this principle,, and to show that the law ex. ted that where restitution of pro erty taken by felony was -red, everY means in his power leidbus vthpay isitingsuc retittion to bring the felon to justice. By the 21st fi-enr ViI.,it as ordered that no writ of restitution could he, satd utilthepaty bail convicted, by himself or by othiers, the rtyconnitingthefelony,v and, by tlt'~ conimnon law, writs of ticisio wee nt ganted where it could be: proved that thie so caiing restitutO ia o ,rdyi prosecuting, the party by het ewas iniured o opiytee principles to the ease be- Ore them.'Ihere wa a ermipo of elony on the pare of the LORD CHmIEF JUST rcE..-There ean be little doutbt of that. Mlr. Sergeant, TADDir.-Then, nmy 1ord, I contend Ithjat, to en. ide the party to rCtemedY by givil actionl,lie was bound to use all the eat in hiis poiper to bring the party by whose ifelony tie claitui ivas uspted to jusifcee; and lie wa-s thierefore bound, as a mneans withiin &c)ofr, to communicate thie fact of tltce forgery the very hour that !in olieeigc of-it reached him. hthv en..h Ar ti PARX.-Wssat itee would ila m3ebenteLan was Iread4y lin custody? lowv couid the information put the Bank in a 'ter situation t,htin they were before ? Air. Se-zeant TARaDY.-It woldith, m Lord, by preventing thtcm telpaying p3rties whom they- would not Othierwisie pay. The med sergc;hiatiCfilwent (in to contend, that the ends o('3uR- Cewould b6dblfeOted, if a party whbo had acted as.thte plaintiff mId beiahloweet oavailhitnselftof whatwag clearylyIilsown wrong. lrd Chief.TL6tilee EST.--- have lheard youir argttmtnt in the 5isof roardef atildrohbey, andt (though I think the principle uipon) lmkeac deendisdiffererit,yet I do not say they are without weight tierne othsaction:, bttt suppose I crntrtist insygoodS to a car. and he boees-them by robbery, will yoiu show filianly case 1k ge m1nfth 'of sayinig that T Ca.nnot proceed against the erfor the 'fteoveiY of my property, unless the robber be eon. Mir. Sergeant T4DDY'-Idy Lords I cannot Cite any ease a'ichl that length; but I submit, that it my goods are taken from the ner by robbery, and that I knowv of that robbery ind do not in- tthecarrier of it, until the robber is fled, then I barmyselffro rreedy by action against him. 1?rd Chief Justide BEST.-YVOI mast of collrse contend that; t is your atgtment. M,l. Jalstiee PARx.-You have laid down a general proposition, l when a felonr has been comn-itted, no actlon ean be maintain. which aTises, directly or collaterally, oat of tlhat felony, untdi at- trial ald conviction of the felon-that is, until public. jtsticC is fitxL Now I do not say that ibis propositin is wiihott any nIs in yotir argument; bitt supliose in the present case, that the icommtting the forgery had fled the country before the plain. tnew' nit, do Vott to nCan to say that no MtQtn foe t*he reco. of thc p7operty could then be-msaintained ; and if -it could,does mot nni ttte,ainst your general priticiple ? k. SerieAnt TADDY.~-I1 that two', my Lord, undoubtedly no. could havetaken place. The case, I -subnit, does hot 'make it rny application of the generl principle to the present aetion. I have contended for here was, that the plaintiff should be able Ow that eyery tling in his power had been done for satisfying ;tuds of pbblic jusilce . but it is clear that lie did that by which crib of putblic .justiee miight have been dereated; and he reIy, I sutbmit, debarred liimaelf of his -riglht ot action. e*an ser cant then recapitulated his argnuments, and terned ' went the ftil length of imAintaining the ~~5iniciple wzith wbich he set out-that the ltla'ntifi bad, in 1 ca,Ilost bis right of action. It. t-ierge nt VAUGHAS briefly replied. 'rd Chief Justice BEST.-We have received in this ease every statlee which great learning, diligence. and talent, can give; but ae sho'4d be wanting in our duty if we did not take time to cos. aider a came oF seuchM agnitud As it mayi qflteredtfn ito the pa3 ties to know, we shall gtve notice of tle day whea the Cortt wil pro. tjounce judgMent. The bo0TRT rose a little before two o'clock, in'order to meet the other Judges nt the Privy Couoeil. COURT OF CSIAIOON PLEAS. FinD.&. Nn'u '.- _. - DAVIS V. T1AE BANK OF ENGLASn.