Court Of King's Bench, We...
A ma was an action on a bill of exchange for 711., whieh wan tried beforethe lTord Chief Justice at Cauildhal]. The defence was, that tle bill had been stolen, and that it *was taken by the plainiff'under circumstances which deprived him of his right to recovcr. The bill vwas transmitted from Birmingham to London by one of the coaches, cndorsed generally, in a parcel which was stolen before its arrival. Two davs afrterits date, it wasbrought to the office of Alr. Gill, a bi11broker, in the city, to be disceunted. lMr. Gill himself was out of town, but bis clerk, a young man of 25 years of age, trarsacted thc business according to the course usutall y followed by his nmaster. The clerk ihoueht be knew the features of the person who applied, 's a man who kad been at the office hefore,and believed his name to be Taylor, buit didl not know 0? take any mreans to ascertain his address. H&Trcquested the applicant to leave the bill; the man complied, and the hlU was left for a couple of hoors, during whhicl time inquiries were made as to the acceptor. but none as to the bearer of the instru. ment. Ilaving found the acceptor responsible, the clerk consented tJ' discount the bill, ar.d did so. giving for it the full amount, de- ductine only the fiir and usual charges. Upon these facts, tbe Lord ('hiief Justice left tho ;ury to decide whether the Dlaintiff took the bill under cirrcnustances which ought to have awakened his suspi- cion, innd directel ifiem, if they were of opinion in the affirmative, tn finti a verdict for the dle'endant. Upon this question, the learned Chief Justicethus strong! expressed hinsieIf:-" Suppose this plain. tifT had posted a board over hi door,; Bills discounted here, on which there are good names, and no questions asked,' would such a .ourse of dealing be warranted bv law ? And woulad not the course of dealing on which his clerk aieed in this instance justify such an inscription?" The jury, on his direction, returned a verdict for the le. tendant; bat in a formner term a rule was obtained toshow cause rhy the vernict should not be set aside. and a new trial granted. Mr. SCARLETT and Ar. PAItICE now showed catuse againit this rnle. It was true that kr. Gill, the plaintiffi, was affected by no guilty knowledge of the manner in which the bill was acquired-that no im;pitataon rested on hiq character; but still, if he had, by hnimself or his clerk, conducted himself with a want of caution whiich rendetl in ics results to aff:rsl facility to the disposal of a stolen bill, he ought not to recover. For the purposes of commerce, the bon& fule holder of a biMl, giving full value for it, and receiving it from a party in whom he had good reason to confide, was protected against any flaw which there might be in the title of a previous bolder: but when the bill had been the subject of a felony or a fraud, and ihe party acquiring it afterwards hNd failed to use due elution, he rnust sustain the l ss io whieh his owvn impru- dence had given cause. Wl hether he did use dne caution or not, was peculiarly a question far the jurY it had been fairlv left to them bv tie XLord Chief Justice, and they, who were lnhabitants of Lontlon, and well acquainted withi the usages of trLde in the city, had formed a delib.ra!e judgrment upon it, which there was no pretence for disturbing. Mr. Gtuns}tY and Mr. F. POLLOCIK argued in support of the rule. The case of "L Lawson Y. Weston," 4 Espinasse's Reports, 5f, was directly in point, or if there were any distinction, wisi stronger than the present against the plal:itiff. That was an action bv coun- try bankers to recover the arnount of a bill for 5001., whieh they had discounted for a total stranger, and which afterwards was proved to bestolen. There It was contended, that theplaintiffought not to recover, because thev hal not used due cliligence to inquire into the circumnstances,as well resnecting the bill as of the person who offered todiscount it; but Lorderenyon said. "Iftherewas anyfraudin the transactios, or if a hona /idc coa.lideration had net been paid for the bill by the plaintiffs, to be sure thev would not be entitled to recover, but to adopt the principle of the deferce to the full extent stated, would be at once to paralyze the circulation of all the paper in the country, and with it all Its commerce. It wosid be going a great length to say, that a banker was bound to make inquiry concerninlg every bill brought to him to discount; it would apply as well to a bill for 101. as for 10,0001." The plaintlift proved that they gave value for the bill, and obtained a verdict, which the defendant never attetinted to distturb. Jn this case, which precisely resembled the last, t.elJord ChiefJusticesentthe case tothe jurvy with a very strong e.xpression of his feelinzavainst the right of the plain tiffto recoYer.Ar d yet, tip to thehourofbhischarge,itwasneversupposed that the ques- tion ot caution was rmaterial in such a case as the present, but it was always considered that if a man acted innocently he was safe. Every mran knewv in his own conscience whether he acted bona fide; but -what (legree of caution he should employ was a questio;t liable to doubt, and varying in its impression on different minds. The i:ub- jcct, affecting the free circulation of bills of exchange, was most im- portant u) the commerce of Engl.and, and therefore the Court would probably think it deserving of more solemn and deliberate inquiry, especially as the view taken of it by the learned Chief Justice dif- ferel fronrr that of Lord Kenyon in a case in all respects parallel. The LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE.-If I thought that another jury could fairly draw an inference from the facts proved in this case diffierent from that which a jury have alreaOy drawn, I should personally be very anxious to send the case to a second trial, because I should deeply regret if anr expresstior of my own had zoo mauch weight in leaading to the previous decision: but thinking as I do that the conclusion at which the jity arrived was the only right and safe conclusion which they cotild reach, I cannet agre,atthe Case shouldI be sent to another trial. 'l'he case of -L a4,son v. Weston" is, I admit, scarcely, if at all, distinguish- ablefrom the present: if there is a distinction, itis, that in that case the party applying with the bill was an entire stranger, whereas in this theclerk tbought he knew his features; so thatcase may becon. sidered, perhaps, a3S little theatronger. Had that ca3c been brought again before Lord Kenyon,I cantiot help thinking that learnedJudge, for whom I have the most (leep and unfeigned reverence, would have psused before he solemnly laid down the ruleas he pronounded it at Nbi Prius. I cannot help recollecting, that since that?case was dc- cided, the robberies of stage coaches for the purpose of obtain- ing bills, have grown more freiiuent and mere extensive,; nor can I help fearing that the perpetratorsof these robberies have de- rived eneouragement from tie facility affirded to them of passing bills through the mediumn of those who transact business after the manner of the plaintiff. I shoald exceedingly regret if any thing which falls from me sliculd have the effect of impeding the due and easy circulation of bills of exchange ; but I entertain a clear and firm opinion that this will not be the result of holding that the present plaintiff is not entitled to recover. I cannot think that the interests of commerce will *uffcr, by requiring frotn these who take bills a just and reasonable caution as to the circuimstances tinder which they receive them, I cannot think tltat these interests rrquire the-indemoification of mnen who choose to take bills from entire strangers. or from ptrsons whose features only they know, without nsking a single- questiorn, or making a single inquiry, except as to the respsonsibility of the acceptor. I put the case no doubtstrongly to the jury; T stiltfeel it strongly, and I think the practice proved to exist in M1lr. Gill's office, very inconvenient and liable to affosd encouragement to fraud. I think, tbrefore the jurv have come to a right conclusion, and that there is no ground for disiturbing the ver.4ict. MSr. Juetico BAYLE r.-I think this case was left to the jury on its true grounds, and that the illustration put by the Lord Chief Justice, though strorg, was fully warranted by the facts. If the plaintiff'usually transacteri business in the manner proved, lie did what was e4uivatlent tO giving sitch a nlotice; if he not usually so trarsacted business, he or his clerk varied in this instance from the ordinary cousse without any sufficient cause. Triue it is, that in cases 4f this fcind, the question lias been of boga4fltk: or vl1t4 flies; but in My judgment want of caution is a patt of .to44 des. The qiie#. tion of cautioni is riot now, for the first time, introduced in a case of this nature it has been glanced at.in previous decision?, and it may he collected from these, that to constitute boliafides the bill must be received in the ordinary c6irre of dealing, and under circumstances not calculzted to awaken suspikio,r. The rule for a new trial must;, therefore, be discharged1. l;r. Justice HOLROYD concurred. Air. Justice LrTTLED ALE, having been absent during part of the argument, gave no opinion.. The rule for a new trial w Is accordingly discharged. TItE XIMG,ON TIlE PtLOSECUTION Or DU.BrCX,V.DR.RAIRD. ilIr. ALDERSOV movedl for a rule, calling on Dr. Baird, a phy. Mcian of lpswich, to show cause why a criminal information should not be exhibitet against hinr. lse made this application at the instance of Dr. Beck, who had, about three months ago, begun to practise as a physician in the same place. Some rumours were cir- culated about the towfn that Dr. Brck was not duly qualified to practise as a physfcian, in consequence of rbich he thought it right to annisunce, in a provincial paper, that lie was a Bachelor of Medi. cire of the University of Cambridge, and to publish the opinion of a ligh authiorty on tcesubject, *that he was, as such, qualified to practise. To this announcement he added a ouery, whetiher a Scotch diploma auithorized a medical man to practise in the country with- out a certificate from the College of Physicians ? Dr. Baird fmagin. ed this query to be aimed at himself, and sent to ask Dr. Beck whe- ther lie was the author of the paragraph? Dr. Beck replied, that before lie answered this question he was entitled to know whe. ther Dr. Baird was the author of the rumours which hail occa- sioned the paragraph. Dr. Baird, on this, dlemanded the name of the person or persons who had clargedi him with! circulating such rumours. Dr. Beck made answer, that there were two gentle. men who liad mentioned him as giving thiem currency, and that he wouldl disclose their Dames if they would give him per.mission. He did afterwards, with the consent of the party. communicate the name of one of them; hut Dr. Baird insisteil also on receiving the name of the ether hefere 10 the next morning. Dr. Beck immediately wrote to the party in question; but, in consequence of liis absence from honme, did not receive his answer till a quarter after 12, when lie sent the name. Just after this, he received a letter from Dr. Baird, charging Iriar with having told an atrocious falsehood, and stating that in future lie should consider him as having forfeited his claim to the character of a gentleman. This vas followed up by a placard, in the hand-writing of Dr. Baird, posting Dr, Beck in the coffee-rom of a club for which he 'was theni proposed as a member, and hung immediately under his name. The CouRT granted a rule to show cause. WURT OF KING'S BENCII, WESTMINSTERD Nov. 19. GTT.LL V. CWFITT.