Holiday v. Sigil

Holiday v. Sigil.

COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.

Original Citation: (1826) 2 Car & P 176

English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 81

Jan. 16th, 1826.

2 GAR. & P. 177. HOLIDAY V. SIGIL 81

Jan. 16th, 1826. Holiday v. Sigil.

(In actions for money had and received, brought by the owners of lost bank notes, against those who may have got them into their hands without giving value ; it is not absolutely necessary for the plaintiff to give direct evidence of the loss It is sufficient if such circumstances are shewn as satisfy the jury of the fact of the loss.)

Money had and received Plea-General issue

This action was brought to recover the amount of a bank of England note for 500, dated May 10th, 1823, No. 6869, which was alleged to have been accidentally lost by the plaintiff at Tattersall's, near Pirnlico, and found by the defendant. A clerk of Marsh and Go. proved, that the plaintiff had received the note iti question from their house ; and it was further proved, that on the 2d of June, 1823, the plaintiff and defendant were both at TattersalVs, that being a great settling day, and much money passing. The [177] plaintiff, while at Tattersall's, complained to Sayer, a police officer, that he had lost a 500 note ; and also employed Mr Lee. his attorney, to take steps for the tracing of the note A clerk of Messrs Ransom and Co proved, that they received it from the defendant on the 16th June, 1823 , and a witness named Chitfiiey, who stated that he was a trainer, proved, that he was at TattersalFs oil the 2 1 of June, and saw the plaintiff pass by him, and as he passed, he put his hand to his breeches' pocket ; and soon after, the defendant stooped and picked up something. The witness stated, that he asked him whether he had picked up any notes, and that he said, " a small note 1 dropped."

The defendant, when spoken to on the subject, after it was found that he had paid it in at Ransom's banking house said, that he had received it from a Mr. Wilkms, who owed him 55.

No witnesses were called for the deience

Abbott, C. J (to the jury) -The question to be considered is, whether you are satisfied that the plaintiff lost this note, and that the defendant found it , for if you are, the plaintiff it entitled to your verdict. 1 should observe, that it is scarcely possible for a plaintiff, when his property is stolen, or accidentally lost, to prove the lo&s by direct evidence , and, therefore, that must in almost all cases be made out by circumstances His Lordship recapitulated the circumstances of the case.

Verdict for the plaintiff -Damages, 500 *

Scarlett and Manning, for the plaintiff.

Brougham and Tmdal, for the defendant.

[Attormes-Windus, and SigiL]