It was proved that the plaintiff's cheque had been paid, but it was not proved that it was paid to Lacy, and it was drawn as above mentioned, payable to "cash," and the defendant swore he had not had any value for his cheque. Parry, Serjt., insisted that there was no evidence that the plaintiff's money had been paid to Lacy. Shee, Serjt., in reply, urged that to sustain the defence it must be proved that the plaintiff gave no value for the cheque, as well as that the defendant got nothing for it. BRAMWELL, B., recalled the banker's clerk, and elicited that it was usual to make cheques payable to "cash" when it was wished that they should be paid at the counter, and not go through the clearing-house, and afterwards, in summing up, said he had been looking into the stamp laws, and believed that his ruling as to the admissibility of the post-dated cheque was right (a). Verdict for the plaintiff. (a) Sed vide Oliver v. Mortimer, Vol. II., p. 127, contrà. 1862. KEY V. MATHIAS. CARRINGTON v. MAY. Essex Summer THIS was an action for the seduction of the plaintiff's An agreement The defendant pleaded that he had agreed to pay 31., and also pay the plaintiff 2s. 6d. a week for the support of to pay weekly or monthly sums, amounting in the whole to 20%., requires a the child until thirteen years of age, and that this agree- stamp on that ment was taken in satisfaction (b). Issue. Hawkins and Pearce for the plaintiff. Shee, Serjt., and Philbrick for the defendant. (b) Evans v. Powis, 1 Exch. Rep. 601. value. Quære, whether, on a plea alleging that an agreement has been accepted in satisfaction, it is any objec tion that the agreement is within the 6th section of the Statute of Frauds, so that no action could be brought upon it? or, the case being one of tort, that the defendant was an infant? 1862. CARRINGTON v. MAY. The defendant was a minor, and on the 23rd of May, 1861, when the child was five months old, a friend of his, named Betts, paid the plaintiff on his part 37., and the plaintiff signed the following document: "Received of Mr. Betts the sum of 31., for five months at 8s. per month, and 17. for expenses; and I hereby undertake to execute an agreement as soon as the same can be prepared, the object of such agreement being that I am to receive the sum of 2s. a week for my daughter's child until he shall attain the age of thirteen years." On this being produced, it turned out to be unstamped. The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the agreement did not appear upon the face of it to be of the value of 5l., for the child might die next day (a). The learned BARON said that could hardly be deemed a sufficient answer. He inclined to the opinion that the agreement was of the value of 207. and more, and should certainly be stamped. The agreement was then stamped with a 2s. 6d. stamp, and 107. penalty was paid, with the fee of 17. When the above document was given there was a difficulty as to how it could be carried out, as the defendant was an infant, and his father did not seem to have been disposed to become bound under it. The agreement was not carried out. The agreed allowance was not paid, and there was an affiliation order for the payment of 2s. 6d. a week. The money was not regularly paid, and the present action was brought. When the defendant's case was proved, Hawkins, on the part of the plaintiff, objected—1st, that there was no evidence that he had accepted the promise in satisfaction; 2ndly, that the agreement (b) was (a) Vide Souch v. Strawbridge, 2 C. B. 808. (b) In Lavery v. Turley, 30 L. J., Exch. 48, a similar objection was overruled, but there the plea alleged that possession had actually been taken under the agreement and accepted in satisfaction, and the court decided on that ground; the contract having been within the Statute of Frauds, as it was one which could not be performed within a year, and so it required to be signed by "the party to be charged," i. e., by the defendant, who had not, however, been a party to it; 3rdly, that even if he had been, it would not bind him, as he was an infant; and so the alleged agreement was of no legal validity or value, and the alleged acceptance of it in satisfaction was invalid. The learned BARON said he was disposed to think that one, if not more, of these objections was valid; but he thought the case one for arrangement. Thereupon the parties and their counsel conferred, and the result was an arrangement. executed. Here it was the agreement which was alleged to have been taken in satisfaction, which was of no legal value if not valid. That case, like this, was within the 4th section; which provides that no action shall be brought" on the agreement, which makes the objection the same in effect as that grounded on the infancy of defend- 1862. CARRINGTON v. MAY. Maidstone, coram Bramwell, B. REGINA v. CROUCHER. THE prisoner was indicted for a rape on a young girl. Biron for the prosecution. Ribton for the prisoner. The prosecutrix and the prisoner were both in the service of the same person, a farmer in this county, and one evening, the prosecutrix having been out, the prisoner met her, and, according to her evidence, committed the offence. Slight screams were heard by one of the witnesses, but not such as to attract much notice, and the girl on her VOL. III. X F.F. 1862. REGINA บ. CROUCHER. return home made no complaint to her mistress, and next morning made the prisoner's breakfast as usual. Afterwards, however, her mistress taxing her with her clothes being dirty, and pressing inquiries on the subject, she made for the first time the present charge. The girl's mistress did not appear, but her husband stated on oath that she was pregnant, and unable to attend. On cross-examination, it was elicited that he was unable to state how far advanced she was, and it also came out that she was about the house attending to her household duties as usual, and had prepared breakfast for him that very morning as usual, and had not yet been confined to bed. He, however, stated that a fortnight ago he had driven her to Maidstone, and that she had suffered somewhat in consequence. Upon this evidence it was proposed, on the part of the prosecution, to put in her deposition. Ribton, on the part of the prisoner, objected that the deposition was not admissible under the statute allowing such a course where the witness was unable to travel, there being no sufficient proof that she was so unable, especially as no medical man had been examined. Biron, on the other hand, urged that the fact of pregnancy, and the fact of the positive injury which had actually arisen from an attempt to travel, were sufficient without further evidence. The learned BARON, after some consideration, said he should allow the deposition to be read; but at the same time intimated that he should, if the prisoner were convicted, probably reserve the point for the consideration of the Court for Reserved Crown Cases. The prisoner, however, was acquitted (a). (a) So the point cannot come before the Court above, and it is mentioned, as one of great importance in the administration of cri Kent Summer MURDER. The indictment laying it of a person un- Where a pri known. Biron for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. soner indicted for murder had wilfully set fire to a stack of straw, close to an outhouse or barn, in an inclosure not ad The prisoner had wilfully set fire to a stack of straw in jo a house, and the deceased had an inclosure, in which also was an out-house or barn, but dwelling- his body was afterwards found in the inclosure. It did been burnt to death, either in the out-house or on or by the side of the stack :- Held, soner was not der, unless the deceased was not very clearly appear whether he had been in the out- that the prihouse, or merely lying on or by the side of the stack. guilty of murThere was no evidence, however, who he was, and from this, coupled with the fact that he was unable to get out, it should seem that he was in the barn, and that he had been a tramp or beggar asleep when the fire was kindled. There was no evidence how or when he came there, nor there when he stack; and set fire to the quære, whether he would have been so even had the man been there at the time, he not knowing nor having any reason to be any evidence that the prisoner had any idea that any one was, or was likely to be, there. On the contrary, it rather appeared that he was shocked and surprised to find that any one was in the flames, and, when he saw and heard lieve or supthe deceased, wanted to save him. It did not exactly appear how long the fire had been kindled before it was pose that anyone was there. |