1863. BRITTAIN V. THE BANK OF proper acts to be done for prosecuting the said charge against the plaintiff, and for having him dealt with according to law for the said offence. 3. That before and at the said time when, &c. they were carrying on business as bankers, and that before the said time when, &c. some person, then unknown to the defendants, feloniously offered, uttered, disposed of and put off a certain forged order for the payment of money, to wit, for the payment of the sum of 77., and commonly called a cheque, with intent to defraud, which said forged cheque is as follows, that is to say [setting it out]; the said person, at the time he so offered, disposed of and put off the said last-mentioned forged order for the payment of money as aforesaid, then and there well knowing the same to be forged, against the form of the aforesaid statute in that case made and provided, &c. That the said forged cheque purported to have been drawn by one Brown in favour of the plaintiff, and that the said Brown then kept an account with the defendants as and then being his bankers. That the said forged cheque was presented to and paid by them as such bankers, and was afterwards by them delivered to the said Brown; and that afterwards the said Brown brought the said cheque back to them and said it was a forgery. That afterwards the manager of the defendants received from the said Brown a letter and statement therein inclosed, which letter and statement were and are in the same words and had the same meaning as the letter and statement set forth in the second plea. That, on the receipt of the said letter and statement, they placed the said statement and the said cheque in the hands of one Richard Mullens, the solicitor of the London Bankers' Association, who had large experience in investigating forgeries committed upon bankers, and requested the said Mullens to investigate the said charge against the plaintiff; and that the said Mullens had several interviews with the said Brown on the subject of the said alleged forgery, and found no reason to doubt any part of the said statement. That the said Mullens, by means of inquiries by him made from other persons than the said Brown, ascertained that the 77. cheque had in fact been received from the plaintiff by one Smith, &c. That they had not, before they did what is complained of, any reason to doubt the truth of the said statement of the said Brown, whereupon the defendants, by the said Mullens, as their agent in that behalf, knowing the premises, and by reason thereof having reasonable and probable cause for suspecting and suspecting that the said forged cheque had been knowingly and feloniously uttered with intent to defraud, against the form of the said statute, and that the plaintiff was the person who had so knowingly and feloniously uttered the said forged cheque with intent to defraud as aforesaid, by the said Mullens, as and being their agent in that behalf, did give the plaintiff into custody of a policeman and constable duly authorized in that behalf, and gently lay the hands of the said policeman on the plaintiff in order to take him into custody for the said offence, and to take him before a justice of the peace authorized in that behalf, to be examined by the said justice touching and concerning the said offence, and to be dealt with according to law for the said offence, and take the plaintiff to and imprison him in the said police office for the purpose of keeping him in safe custody until he could be taken before such justice as aforesaid for the purpose, and before the said justice charged the plaintiff with the said offence; and thereby, and not otherwise, caused the said justice to remand the plaintiff for the said space of time, and afterwards to commit the plaintiff for trial, and to detain him in prison to await his trial on the said charge, which are the trespasses above complained of, &c. Metcalfe for the plaintiff. Hawkins for the defendants. On the 14th December, 1861, one Brown gave the plain 1863. BRITTAIN V. THE BANK OF 1863. BRITTAIN v. THE BANK OF LONDON. tiff a cheque for 77. on the defendants' bank, which, having been presented and paid, was by them returned to Brown on the 1st January, cancelled in the usual way. In the meantime, disputes between him and Brittain, the plaintiff, had taken place; and, on the 20th December, he had given the plaintiff into charge for obtaining money by false pretences, on which he was remanded for a week, and then released on bail. On receiving the cheque on the 2nd January he altered it in the handwriting, and then took it back to the bank, declaring that it was a forgery. Brown then sent the bank the letter and statement referred to in the pleadings, to the effect that the cheque was forged by Brittain, the plaintiff, and setting forth various circumstances, which, if true, would have tended strongly to show that the plaintiff had committed a forgery. The statement in the letter is as follows:: "Particulars relative to the forged cheque for 71. On the 14th of December, Brittain asked me to advance him 71. to enable him to procure some deals and timber, and thereupon I gave him one for 71., dated [i. e. post dated] the 21st December. This cheque, by his own statement, he was going to pay to one Putney. On the morning of Wednesday, December 18th, Brittain came to me and said that Putney's bankers would not take the cheque dated the 21st, and he asked me to give him in exchange a cheque for 71. of the current date, on the understanding that it should not be presented until the 21st day of December. I did so, and he presently sent me the cheque which I had given him on the previous Saturday, and which cheque, believing the transaction to be quite regular, I destroyed. "On the 20th of December one Mrs. Williams stated to me that she held my cheque for 77., dated the 18th of December, which cheque I produce; and she said, that, on December 14th, Brittain had asked her to change a cheque for 77., and she had said that she could not do so, and that on Monday he had made a similar request to her, and that she changed it for him. That she paid said cheque away on Tuesday, December 17th. That it was returned to her and refused by reason of its being postdated for the 21st of December. That she thereupon applied to Brittain for a cheque of the current date, which he promised to procure for her; and that shortly afterwards he brought her a cheque (now produced) dated the 18th of December, whereupon she gave him back the postdated cheque. This cheque Brittain returned to me and I destroyed same as before stated. I gave Mrs. Williams' cheque for 77. (now produced) in lieu of that of which payment had been stopped. The first intimation I had of the existence of the cheque for 77., which I say is a forgery, was on Wednesday evening last, January 1st, when a Mr. Smith called upon me and stated that he had cashed for Brittain three cheques, one for 71. 5s., one for 71. 5s. 6d. and one for 77.; that he had sent them in together to his bankers, the London and County Bank, Islington Branch; that the two latter had been paid, but the former had been returned to him on the 23rd ult., since which time he had applied to Brittain and his wife for my address, and that he could not and did not obtain it until the afternoon of that day. "On the following morning, Thursday, January 2nd, I obtained from the Bank of London the cheque for 71. produced, and which I presume is the cheque referred to by Mr. Smith, as it appears to have passed through the Islington Branch of the London and County Bank; I at once recognized it as a forgery; no part of it is in my handwriting, although in many respects it has a similarity. I believe the cheque to bear the handwriting of Brittain, although I cannot speak positively on this point. This much I know, that on the 14th of December I gave him no other cheque for 77. than that which was dated the 21st of December, and which cheque it can be indisputably 1863. BRITTAIN บ. THE BANK OF 1863. BRITTAIN v. THE BANK OF proved that he changed, as before stated, and afterwards received in exchange for the same the cheque dated the 18th of December, also before stated. "I was in the habit of carrying a few blank cheques in my pocket for business purposes, and about the 14th of December I lost or mislaid a roll of these; Brittain was daily at my office, and my impression now is, that he found them, and that the cheque in question is one of those which I lost. I named my loss to him. On searching at Brittain's office in the works, this day, I found a piece of paper herewith produced (on which certain attempts to copy my signature are made), I believe them to be in Brittain's handwriting. "He is at the present time out on bail, being committed to take his trial at the next Middlesex Sessions for obtaining money by fraud and false pretences, full particulars of which charge have appeared in the newspapers. I believe the total amount of his frauds upon me, as discovered to the present date, are about 601. There are one or two charges of embezzlement and several of forged receipts. I have not the least doubt that he forged and uttered the cheque in question." The defendants, on the 3rd of January, on receiving this statement, took the steps mentioned in the pleas, that is, they put the matter into the hands of Mr. Mullens, who, on investigating the facts, gave the plaintiff into custody on a charge of forgery, on which he was brought up before a magistrate and committed for trial, but on which he was acquitted, no evidence being offered against him. Mr. Mullens having in the meantime, by discrepancies in Brown's statements, and by microscopic observation of the cheque, satisfied himself of the plaintiff's innocence. Brown had since been tried and convicted for forgery (a). (a) Upon an indictment containing counts for forging the cheque in question, but also containing counts for forging two other documents (an |