« PrejšnjaNaprej »
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BOSANQUET.
SHELLEY, Administratrix of SHELLEY, 0. FORD.
July 18th. THE first count of the declaration stated, that the intes- A. let a horse on tate was the owner of a horse, which had been by him let bire to B. for
month, B. to hire to one William Lewis; and that the defendant, to kept it for two
mouths, and the injury of the intestate's reversionary interest in the then sold it to
C.:-Held, that horse, took it into his possession, and sold it. There was A. might recover a similar count, stating the whole matter, except the let- the value of the ting of the horse, to have occurred since the death of although C. had
acted bona fide, the deceased; and there were also counts in trover. and had paid B. Plea-Not guilty.
the full value. It appeared that, in the month of September, 1830, the intestate had let the horse on hire to Captain Lewis, for one month; and it was proved, by the admission of the defendant himself, that, in the month of November, 1830, he had bought the horse of Captain Lewis for 101. which was then the full value of it; and that, after keeping it at livery for some time, he had sold it.
Justice, for the defendant.—I submit that this action cannot be maintained. The defendant acted bona fide in the buying of the horse; and he has at least a lien upon it for the amount of 101., the sum which he has paid for it; and, in any view of the case, that sum ought to have been tendered before any action was brought.
Mr. Justice BOSANQUET (in summing up).- In this case the property in this horse was in the intestate, and Captain Lewis had only a limited interest in it; he, therefore,
when he sold it, could give the defendant no better title than he had got himself.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 151.
Curwood, Carrington, and Jeffreys Williams, for the plaintiff.
Justice, for the defendant.
[Attornies--C. Carus Wilson, and G. S. Ford.]
In general, no sale by a person who has no right to sell, is good against the rightful owner, except it be made in market overt; and it is laid down (Bac. Abr.tit. Fair, E) that every sale made in a fair or market overt, transfers a complete property in the thing sold to the vendee, however illegal the title of the vendor. In London, every day is market-day, except Sunday; so that a sale on any of these days is as good as it would be on the fair or market-day in the country; and in London every shop, except a pawnbroker's, is a market overt for such things as the owner, professes to trade in ; but in the country, the market overt is confined to the particular place or spot set apart by custom for the sale of particular goods.
However, the property in a horse is not changed as against the rightful owner, unless the provisions of the stat. 2 & 3 P. & M. c. 7, and 31 Eliz. c. 12, (which will be found in Burn's Justice, tit. Horses), are complied with.
See also the case of Gimson v. Woodfull, ante, Vol. 2, p. 41.
As to factors and agents dealing with goods intrusted to them, see the stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 94: and the case of Dyer v. Pearson, 4 D. & R. 653, as to the effect of the true owners allowing another to hold himself out as the owner of goods. As to the restitution of stolen goods on the conviction of the offender, see the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 57, which is set out Carr. Sup. 334.
BEFORE MR. BARON GURNEY.
Doe on the demise of Crake v. Brown. EJECTMENT. When this cause was called on in its A counsel, to order, it appeared that no brief had been delivered for the in a cause has lessor of the plaintiff, and the attorney was not in Court.
been given, no brief having
been delivered, Talfourd stated that he had a retainer for the lessor of draw the record. the plaintiff, and wished to withdraw the record.
Mr. Baron GURNEY. A retainer without a brief does not authorize you to withdraw the record. Mr. Jervis, you are for the defendant; do you wish the Jury to be sworn, and to nonsuit the plaintiff?
Mr. Jerris.-Yes, my Lord.
The Jury were sworn, and the plaintiff
Talfourd, for the lessor of the plaintiff.
[Attornies--Mathews, and Eyre.]
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BOSANQUET.
Rex v. CROWTHER. An indictment, FORGERY. The indictment charged the prisoner with which charges a forged check having forged " a certain warrant and order for the payto be " a war
ment of money, which said warrant and order is in the rant and order for the payment words and figures following—that is to say: of money, which said warrant and
“ WORCESTER OLD BANK. order is in the words and fi
Hanbury Hall, Nov. 28, 1828. gures following," is good. “ Messrs. Berwick, Wall, Isaac, and Lechmere, pay to
A forged check on the W. Bank Mr. John Perkins, or bearer, twenty-five pounds ten shilwas presented for payment at lings.
John Phillips." the S. Bank, where the sup
£25 : 10:0. posed drawer never kept cash: with intent then and there to defraud Francis Rufford -Held, ihat this was sufficient and others. There were other counts, which charged, evidence of an intent to defraud that the prisoner did “utter,” and also “ did offer, disthe partners of pose of, and put off," the forged instrument, knowing it to the S. Bank, although there was be forged. no probability of their paying
It appeared that this check, which purported to be a the check, even check on the Worcester Old Bank, was presented by the if it had been genuine. prisoner for payment at Messrs. Rufford's bank, at Stour
bridge; and it was proved that they would not pay the amount, and that no person named John Phillips kept cash with them.
Godson and F. V. Lee objected that this case must fail upon two grounds:- First, because this indictment charged, in every count, that the prisoner either forged, uttered, or offered a “ warrant and order;" which imported that he had committed an offence with respect to two instruments; and secondly, because it could not have been done
to defraud Messrs. Rufford, as they had no customer of the name of John Phillips; and there was, therefore, not the most remote chance of their paying the money.
Mr. Justice BOSANQUET.-I am of opinion that this indictment is sufficient. In each of the counts there is only one instrument set out, and it is called—“A warrant and order for the payment of money, in the words and figures following." I think it is both a warrant and an ordera warrant authorizing the banker to pay, and an order upon him to do so. With respect to the other point, I think that the prisoner going to Messrs. Rufford's, and presenting this paper for payment, is quite sufficient evi. dence of an intent to defraud them.
Shutt, for the prosecution.
Godson and F. V. Lee, for the prisoner.
[Attornies-Robesons, and Pumfrey.]
By the statute 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 3, it is enacted," that if any person shall forge or alter, or shall offer, utter, dispose of, or put off, knowing the same to be forged or altered, any warrant or order for the payment of money, with intent to defraud any person whatsoever, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof, shall suffer death as a felon." By the statute 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 123, the capital punishment is repealed,
except as to wills and testamen-