MELROURNE ITEMS.

Western Star, Issue 1546, 21 March 1891, Page 4

MELROURNE ITEMS.

(PUOM 0011 OWN CO'UtESPONDEXT). I am amongst those who think that Mr James Mi rams qot nothing more than his .Inserts when he was relocated t 0 orison for twelve months over the Premier Building Society s business. Put it was never intended that a greater amount of punishment soould he crowded into the twelve months than what a year's imprisonment ordinarily means. It seems, however, that nis presence is required in court as a witness, and on Friday application was made to the Acting-Premier. Mr Langridge, on his behalf, for permission that he might be allowed to wear his ordinary clothing when before the Supreme Court ns a witness. Mr Langridgc, for the sake of ancient friendship, was very anxious to do what lie could to soften the degradation of

his unfortunate ex-colleague's .-hnation. On inquiry, he found, however, that the matter could not be arranged as requested, unless by the express permission of the judge taking the case. As late as November. 1889, the Chief Justice, in an elaborate memorandum, explained his reasons why co livin'witnesses should wear the prison garb in the witness box. He insisted that llio jurv should not be allowed to forget by the siglC of the witness in ordinary clothing that his evidence is subject to suspicion. He soys it >s. therefore, extremely desirable, ami, in fact, necessary, that convict witnesses, when giving evidence, should wear the clothes. He, at the same lime, says that convict prLcucrs on their second trial should not he p eseioed in the

'prison-clothes, as the jury i'i ti.nt i;.<s should not be preju liced against 1 nem by n reminder of their previous conviction. In the face of his Huthorrn(i.(> statement of opiiiio-. the ActingPremier had no option bin to re! use the-permission sought, aiut recummenu .•ipplication to Mr Justice There are two questions widen iU tic present moment absorb public attention to an extent that dwarfs all others. These are the doings at Sydney and at Clermont. In Sydney grave men are deliberating upon measures for the future good government of Australasia; at Clermont, a mob of lawless men have assembled for the purpose of subverting any system of government whatever. The Federal Convention has many difficulties to smooth over before the work now began can be accomplished; but, strangely enough, intelligence has been cabled from England, only on Saturday which may assist the delegates in tl e solution of one problem set them to woik it out—this is, shall there be es tablished a Federal Supreme Court, whose decisions in appeal shall be final, or. shall there be final appeal to the Privy Council ? The judgment of the House of Lord < in the case of Yagliano ■ v&i'sus the Bank of -England, 111 which tbe matter in dispute was the trifling sum of £71,500, shows very conclusively the necessity for having a Court capable of considering questions apart from the legal quibbles and technicalities with which lawyers surround them. A recapitulation of the main features of this case, as given in the money article of the Argus, will be of ini rest to a large number of persons. This celebrated case arose out of some forgeries committed by a Greek clerk, named Odyka, employed by Messrs Yagliau-i Bros. In 1887, Glyka, by an ingenious system of fraud, obtained the acceptance of Mr Yagliano to 43 bills, amounting to £71,500. The nature of the Fraud will appear from the following facts;—Glyka prepared bills purporting to be drawn by Mr G-eor e Vucina, Odessa, in favour of

Messrs C. Pctridi and Co , Constantinople upon Messrs Yagliano Bros, London, endorsed by Messrs C. Peiridi and Co. to N. Maralis. The signature of Vasina ns mak-r of the bill, and that of 0. Potridiand Co., as endorsers, were forged by Glyka. Letters of advice being necessary, Glyka forged them also. The bills, prepared for acceptance and accompanied by the lot tors > advice, were signed by Mr Yagliano in due con-so, being made payable at the Bank of England, where the account of Messrs Yagliano Bros, was k -nt. Glyka, again obtaining po>sessiou of tire bills, bad them presented on maturity across the counter of the Bank or England, and received cadi in payment The. Bank not only had the authority of a gentihe signature of Mr Yagliano, but also received from that gentleman monthly n list, of ac M'fanC' S failing due, and to be paid within t ! 'o month, in which the partially orged bills were enumerated. When the frauds woo discovered Mr Yagliano alleged ihat the Bank of Eog’aiv! had wiougfuliv and without In'! authority debited him with (1m amount of (he bills, £71,500, and the question bad m be decided whither (he Bank or Mr Vagliar.n had lo hoar the loss Mr Yagliano claimed th £ (he Bank was virtually instructed by bi n to pay to (he order of the payees named on t : e bills, Messrs C Polrido and Co . but that it had faih d to do s >, paying on a forgery of Pi tridds signature. The position tiken up by the I Bank was that for (lie purpose of the bills, Messrs C. Petrido and Co. were fictitious or non-exiaiing persons, and it then fore elai ued the p ’olcction of toe Bills of Exchange Act (see ion 7, sub-scciimi 2), winch enacts with reference to bills of exchange that “ where the pavoe is a fictitious or nnn-exisi in • person tee bill mav be troaed as payable to b-'r-r.” The ha ok also alleged that Mr Yagliano had been guilty of such negligence in the mutter as would j excuse the piymenl. The case was I first tried in the Queen’s Bench Court, | and on November (lie 2nd, 1888, Mr j Ju-tico Charles delivered an elaborate j judgment to the effect that C Pctridi i aad Co., as payees of the bills, were j not “fieiiious or non existing pe>-; sons,” and, ecoudlv, that (its pldmiff i had not boon guilty of that species of negligence which would prevent him recovering. Ills decision was there- j fore against, the Bark. The Bank np. j psaled and judgment was dc’iv red in j the C urt of Appeal on May 2fs(, ! 1889. hive Lord Justice-: decided in j favor < i' Mes.-rs Yagliano Brothers, but j Lord Eelier, the Master of the Eolls, !

dissented on the ground _ that j the bills were drawn with fictitious i payees within the enactment in the Bills of Exchange Act. The case, it will bo seen, involved the subtle question whether C. Petiidi and Co., being real persons, were nevertheless ficlitious or non-existing persons so far as the bills containing the forgeries of (heir signature were concerned. The judgment again being adverse to the Bank of England, appeal was made to the House of Lords, by whom the case was heard in the middle of -last year, judgment being reserved. The judg‘ment has now been given, reversing those delivered in the Queen’s Bench Court and the Court of Appeal, and deciding that Mr Vagliano must bear iho loss whicharoso from his acceptance of bills to which the signatures of maker and payees were'alike forged. Most business men will agree with the last decision. The bank paid to Hie acceptance of Iho genuine signature .d; Messrs, Vagliai.o Bros ; but being Greeks, they tried to get out of the mess af’er a “ Grc. k ” fashion.