increase of 28 depositors, and of £249 13s. 8d. in amount of deposits; and in Belfast, an increase of 3 depositors, and with a decrease of £93 13s. 9d. in amount of deposits; showing a total increase of depositors of 212, and in amount of deposits of £37,365 10s. 1d.

FORGERY UPON THE CARLISLE AND CUMBERLAND BANK.

A FORGERY of a serious and somewhat daring character has recently been committed upon the Carlisle and Cumberland Bank, which has resulted in the capture of the forger, and his committal to take his trial at the next assizes. The prisoner, Edward Stewart Wilson, was, for some years previous to 1847, clerk to Mr. G. G. Mounsey, solicitor, of Carlisle, and since that period he does not seem to have had any regular employment, but with the assistance of his friends has been enabled to assume an appearance of respectability. On the 5th February, Mr. Ward, the manager of the bank, received by post a letter dated Carlisle, February 3rd, signed “Thomas Sanderson," stating that, on arriving in Carlisle that afternoon, he was too late to get the enclosed cheque cashed, and requesting, as he was compelled to leave by the next train, in order to be in time for his clerical duties the following day, to have an order forwarded on the London agents of the bank, payable at sight, addressed to him at Langford Vicarage, near Lancaster. The cheque, which was for £538 12s. 8d., was drawn in favour of the Rev. Thomas Sanderson, and purported to be signed by Messrs. T. H. and C. B. Hodgson, who are solicitors in the city, and keep an account at the bank.

Below the cheque was a letter, purporting to be written by the Messrs. Hodgson, and addressed to the Rev. Thomas Sanderson, referring to some recent business transactions, and stating that the cheque was forwarded in payment of the balance due to him for property sold. The paper on which the letter and cheque were written had been damped, so as to give it the appearance of having passed through the copying press in the ordinary way of business. Mr. Ward forthwith drew a bill at sight on Messrs. Hankeys, the London agents, for the amount of the cheque, and forwarded it, as directed, to "the Rev. Thomas Sanderson, Langford Vicarage, near Lancaster." In the ordinary course, the draft was returned by Messrs. Hankeys to the Carlisle and Cumberland Bank. It was indorsed in handwriting similar to that of the two letters received by Mr. Ward, so the matter rested until the 21st of April, when Messrs. Hodgson, on looking at the entries in the pass-book, this item was perceived, and as no such cheque had been drawn in their office, it was at once pronounced a forgery, and steps were taken to obtain some clue to the forger. The postmaster at Lancaster was applied to, in order to ascertain by whom the letter addressed to the Rev. Thomas Sanderson was received. He replied, that he had received a note from the Rev. Thomas Sanderson, dated " Carlisle, February 3" (the day on which the cheque was sent to the bank), stating that a letter would arrive at Lancaster addressed to him, and requesting that it might be returned to him at the post-office, Carlisle. He had accordingly sent the letter back to Carlisle, immediately after its arrival on the Monday evening. Inquiry at the post-office at Carlisle showed that the letter had been received there, and that it had been called for on the Tuesday morning, After the detection of the fraud, suspicion at once rested on the prisoner. It was ascertained that on Monday, the 5th of February, he had been induced to make an engagement for the following evening, but on Tuesday

morning he stated that he would not be able to adhere to it, as he had received a communication which would render it necessary for him at once to go up to London, and he accordingly went off to London that day. On the morning of Wednesday, the 7th, the draft on Hankeys for £538 5s. 8d. was cashed at that establishment, and was indorsed "Received, Thomas Sanderson." It was paid in one Bank of England note of £500, five £5 Bank of England notes, and the remainder in gold. Within an hour or two the large note was presented at the Bank of England, and paid, all in gold, and was indorsed Thomas Sanderson, Langford Vicarage, Lancaster, and Elder's Hotel, Adelphi." Four of the smaller notes were some time afterwards paid into the Bank of England, and were traced to have been in the possession of the prisoner, who paid them to Mr. Luxmore, a pawnbroker, for some gold watches, which were found in his possession, and which he had previously pawned. It also appeared that soon after the draft was cashed the prisoner was in possession of a sum of gold, amounting to nearly as much as the amount of the draft, and that subsequently he called at Messrs. Prescott, Grote, and Co.'s, and paid about £480 to his credit with the bank of Mona, Douglas, Isle of Man. A short time ago the prisoner purchased a house at Douglas for £150, and had been residing there for a fortnight. Previous to his being taken into custody, the prisoner was a young man of apparently devout habits. He recently seceded from the Church of England, and presented to the Roman Catholic church at Warwick, which he attended for some time, a stained glass window, with the inscription, "Pray for the soul of Edward Wilson." He attended the cathedral on Easter Sunday, and took the sacrament!

TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.

THE monthly returns of the board of trade were issued on the 1st of May, but as there is a departure from the usual period to which they are dated they do not afford the ordinary means of comparison. Hitherto the returns have been to the 5th of each month, and, if there had been no change of practice, those now published would have reached to the 5th of April. But, in pursuance of a recent act, all such documents are henceforth to be made up to the last day of the calendar months instead of the financial months, as heretofore, and the present accounts consequently reached only to the 31st of March. They thus include but 22 working days instead of 27, as in the past years, and therefore, as contrasted with those for the month ending 5th of April, 1854, are five days short. Hence the various totals present an undue diminution, and the declared value of exports appears to be only £7,311,305 against £10,042,754 in the corresponding month of 1854, whereas, by allowing for five days extra, the amount would be raised to about £9,000,000, showing an actual falling off of not more than £1,000,000, a result much less unsatisfactory than in the preceding month, when it was £2,470,496. Metals seem to have experienced the greatest decline, owing to the diminished demand for iron for railway works in the United States and elsewhere. Woollen, cotton, linen, and silk manufactures have likewise been much depressed, as well as haberdashery, hardware, and saddlery, the re-action in the Australian markets being

especially felt in the three latter branches of production. Annexed are the figures for the month ending the 5th of April, 1854, and for the month in part from the 6th to the 31st of March, 1855:

THE position of credit, so far as the metropolis is concerned, continues satisfactory. No failure of importance has occurred in London since the appearance of the last number of the Bankers' Magazine. Those which have taken place are wholly associated with the provinces, where the excess of late speculation continues to produce unfavourable results. Taking them in the aggregate, however, they do not represent an important amount, the iron trade having, to all appearance, suffered principally from the lapse of the accomodation system, which has temporarily been exhausted from the extent to which it was previously carried. The following is a list of the leading firms which have been prejudicially affected :

May. Messrs. Rose, Fletcher, and Co., Birmingham, iron trade.
Mellors and Russell, Liverpool, South American trade.
Coutts and Parkinson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, engineers.
Davies and Co., Birmingham, iron trade.

In the case of Messrs. Rose, Fletcher, and Co., the liabilities are stated to reach £75,000, and the creditors have accepted arrangements, by which it is assumed they will realise a dividend of 7s. 6d. in the pound, payable by instalments, extending over a period of two years. Messrs. Mellors and Russell have suspended for a heavy amount, but an exact estimate cannot yet be given, their trading having been carried on in connection with the whole of the South American markets. There is an expectation that, if they eventually fail to discharge the entire of their engagements, a respectable dividend will, at least, be forthcoming. It is understood that Messrs. Coutts and Parkinson have suffered from liabilities in the metal trade, but to what amount cannot be correctly ascertained. With regard to Messrs. Davies and Co., and Messrs. Toy and Co., £200,000 is alleged to be indebted in one case, and £60,000 in the other.

THE UNITY JOINT-STOCK MUTUAL BANKING COMPANY. THE question raised with respect to the liability of customers, who agree to participate in profits, as proposed in the constitution of this new bank, has apparently been completely set at rest by the ascertained opinions of Sir R. Bethell, Mr. W. W. Cooper, and Mr. J. S. Willes. The directors have acted prudently in appealing to high legal authorities, and the answer having been favourable, they, of course, will now forthwith proceed to organise the undertaking. The case, with the answers of counsel, is thus presented:

"LEGAL OPINION.

NON-LIABILITY OF CUSTOMERS.

"A doubt having been expressed as to the practicability of carrying out the newly proposed principle of mutuality without making the customers partners in the bank, the solicitor was entrusted to obtain the best and most conclusive legal opinions on this point. The attention of the reader is earnestly requested to the following satisfactory opinions, given by three eminent legal authorities, namely, the Solicitor-General, Sir Richard Bethell, Mr. W. Wellington Cooper, of the Chancery Bar, and Mr. James S. Willes, of the Common Law Bar.

Chambers, 27a, Bucklersbury,
May 17th, 1855.

Re Unity Joint-Stock Mutual Banking Association.

Dear Sir,-In accordance with instructions received, I have submitted the following question, having reference to the liability of customers of the Unity Joint-Stock Mutual Banking Association, in carrying out the new principle of mutuality in banking, to the Solicitor-General and Mr. W. W. Cooper, of the Chancery Bar, and also to Mr. James S. Willes, of the Common Law Bar.

The following is a copy of the question, and their opinions, which you will, I am sure consider to be perfectly clear and conclusive.

QUESTION.

Whether the receipt by a customer, in the way proposed by the clauses taken from the deed of settlement of the Unity Joint-Stock Mutual Bank

ing Association, of an annual or half-yearly interest on his minimum, or any other balance for the preceding year, render such customer, either directly or indirectly, liable as a partner in the bank.

OPINIONS.

In our opinion, the receipt by a customer, in the way proposed by the clauses taken from the deed of settlement, of an annual halfyearly interest on his minimum, or other balance for the preceding year, does not render such customer, either directly or indirectly, liable as a partner in the bank.

We cannot suggest any amendment of the clauses referred to.

Lincoln's Inn,

23rd April, 1855.

WM. WELLINGTON COOPER,
JAS. S. WILLES.

It appears to us to be a conclusion warranted by the existing state of the decisions on the subject of partnership, that the receipt by a customer in the manner proposed, of an annual or half-yearly interest on his minimum or other balance for the preceding year, will not render such customer, either directly or indirectly, liable as a partner in the bank. RICHARD BETHELL, WM. WELLINGTON COOPER.

Lincoln's Inn, May 15th, 1855.

I am, dear sir, yours truly,

THOMAS TAYLOE."

Banking and Commercial Law.

LEADING CASES ON BANKING AND COMMERCIAL LAW.

THE LAW OF EQUITABLE LIENS.

RODICK V. GANDELL, 19 Law Journal Chancery, 113.-Certain engineers had overdrawn their account with their bankers, but the engineers, having large claims on railway companies, requested the solicitor for those companies to write to the bankers, and say that they would pay the money to be received from the companies into the bank, to the credit of the engineers. The bank acknowledged the receipt of this letter. The engineers having become bankrupt, the bankers claimed the debts due from the companies, but it was decided that the claim could not be sustained.

When bankers-having made advances, which subsequent events show to be in danger-look about them for security, and find that tangible property has all been encumbered, they often succeed in obtaining a lien on debts. The following case is an instance in which such an attempt failed, and in a note we shall particularly point out instances where an equitable lien has been obtained; the facts of the case sufficiently appear in the judgment of the Master of the Rolls.

We are only able, in the present number, to give a part of the judgment, but in the next number we will give the remainder of the judgment, and also the note.