ment to the said company any check, bill, or note, drawn, accepted, or made by the plaintiff, and without being compelled, by lue course of law, or otherwise, so to do, contrary to their duty to the plaintiff, as such pankers as last aforesaid, and in breach of the trust reposed in them by the plaintiff, as in that count aforesaid: and that, by reason thereof, the plaintiff was then *greatly injured in his credit with *516] the said Philip Charles, Baron De L'Isle and Dudley, and the said Philip Charles, Baron De L'Isle and Dudley, was thereby induced and caused to lay claim, and did lay claim, to the cash balance of the plaintiff then in the hands of the said company as such bankers as aforesaid, and was also thereby led and induced to make, and did make, divers other claims and demands on the plaintiff, to the great trouble, expense, anxiety, vexation, and annoyance of the plaintiff; and the plaintiff had been and was, by means of the premises, otherwise injured and damnified, &c.

The defendant pleaded,-first, that the said banking company were not guilty, secondly (and sixthly), that the plaintiff did not retain and employ the company as bankers,-thirdly (and fourthly), that the company had not any cash balance of the plaintiff in their hands sufficient to pay the checks,-fifthly (and seventhly), that, before and at the time when the plaintiff retained the said banking company as in the declaration mentioned, the plaintiff was the farm-bailiff and agent of Baron De L'Isle and Dudley, and that the plaintiff retained and employed the said banking company, as in the declaration mentioned, as such bailiff and agent as aforesaid, at the request and by the direction of the said baron, but in his own name, and without disclosing to the said company that the said baron was his principal, and that he the plaintiff retained and employed the said banking company as the agent of the said baron, and not on his own account: that the said cash balances which were so in the hands of the said banking company as in the declaration mentioned, at the several times when the said drafts. or orders were so respectively presented for payment, and so refused payment, as in the declaration mentioned, were respectively cash balances composed of moneys belonging to the said baron, *and *517] which the plaintiff had, as such agent and bailiff as aforesaid, before the accruing of any of the causes of action in the introductory part of the plea mentioned, to wit, on the 20th of January, 1847, paid to and deposited with the said banking company, in his own name, and without disclosing to the said company that the said baron was his principal, or that the said moneys were the proper moneys of the said baron: that the said cash balances were the proper moneys of the said baron, and that the plaintiff, at any time, had not any lien upon the said cash balances as against the said baron, nor any right to have the said cash balances, or any part thereof, paid to him, the plaintiff, by the said banking company, except as such agent of the said baron as aforesaid,

and by the permission of the said baron: that, after the plaintiff had so retained and employed the said banking company as aforesaid, and whilst the said cash balances were so in the hands of the said banking company as aforesaid, and before the said drafts or orders, or either of them, were so drawn, or were so presented for payment, as in the declaration mentioned, to wit, on the 22d of January, 1847, the said baron gave notice to the said banking company of all the premises in this plea mentioned, and then directed and required the said banking company to retain in their hands the said cash balances for the use of him the said baron, and not to pay or deliver the same, or any part thereof, to the plaintiff or his order; to which said request of the said baron, the said banking company then assented,-of all which premises in this plea aforesaid, the plaintiff afterwards, and before he drew the said drafts or orders in the declaration mentioned, or either of them, had notice and that therefore the said banking company, at the several times when, &c., in the declaration mentioned, did refuse to pay the said *drafts or orders, and did dishonour the same, as they lawfully might for the cause aforesaid,-which were the same grievances as in the declaration mentioned; verification.

[*518

The plaintiff joined issue on the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth pleas; and replied to the fifth, that he, the plaintiff, did not retain or employ the said banking company, as in the declaration first mentioned as such bailiff and agent, or as such bailiff or agent as in the said fifth plea mentioned, nor were the said cash balances which were so in the hands of the company as in the declaration and fifth plea mentioned, or either of them, composed of moneys belonging to the said baron, or which the plaintiff, as such agent and bailiff, or as such agent or bailiff as aforesaid, paid to or deposited with the said banking company, in manner and form as the defendant had in his said fifth plea above alleged, concluding to the country: and to the seventh plea he replied de injuriâ.

The defendant joined issue on the replications to the fifth and seventh pleas.

The above causes were tried at Guildhall before WILDE, C. J., and by special juries, at the sittings after Hilary term, 1848, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff in the first action for 1287. 18. 10d., and in the second action for 408. damages,-subject to the opinion of the court, in both actions, upon the following case :

The plaintiff, William Tassell, at the times in question, resided at Penshurst, in Kent, and kept a banking account with the London and County Joint-Stock Banking Company,―a partnership of more than six persons, who carried on business as bankers in London and Tunbridge and other places, under the provisions of the statutes 7 G. 4, c. 46, and 7 & 8 Vict. c. 113: and he brought the first of those actions to recover 1287. 18. 10d., being the balance in his favour on the said banking

*account; and the second action, to recover damages by reason *519] of the company's having dishonoured two of his checks-one for 81. 15s., and another for 271. 88. 8d., hereinafter mentioned, and also for having exposed the particulars of his account to Lord De L'Isle.

In the years 1843 and 1844, the plaintiff, who is a practical farmer, and one Palmer, were tenants of a large farm,-upwards of seven hundred acres,-at Penshurst, in Kent, belonging to Lord De L'Isle and Dudley; and during this tenancy the plaintiff opened a banking account, in his own name, with The London and County Joint-Stock Banking Company, at their branch bank at Tunbridge, in the county of Kent which account continued, from that time down to the occurrences which gave rise to these actions, and was carried on in the usual manner between bankers and their customers.

In 1844, the plaintiff and Palmer ceased to be tenants of the said farm; and the plaintiff then entered into the service of Lord De L'Isie as his farming-bailiff, and continued in that employment down to the time of his discharge hereinafter mentioned. In the course of that employment, the plaintiff had the management of the farm as such bailiff, and the sale of the produce of it; and from time to time received large sums of money arising from the sale of the crops and other produce thereof, on account of Lord De L'Isle, and paid the various charges, expenses, and outgoings of the farm, as such farmingbailiff. During the continuance of the said banking account, the plaintiff was in the habit of paying in to the credit of his said account at the Tunbridge bank of the said banking company, many of the sums of money received by him on account of Lord De L'Isle as aforesaid, as also other sums of money belonging to himself and others; and he also, from *time to time during the continuance of the said *520] banking account, made payments on account of the said Lord De L'Isle and other parties, and also on his own private account, by checks drawn on the said banking company, upon the balance standing to his credit in the said account. The company occasionally discounted bills for the plaintiff, and placed the money thence arising to his credit in the said account, and sometimes allowed him to overdraw his said account. The whole of the checks drawn by the plaintiff against the said account, and paid by the company out of it, were signed by the plaintiff in his own name only; and the account, as well as the usual pass-book, was kept by the company under the plaintiff's name only. Until the company received the notice from Lord De L'Isle hereinafter mentioned, they were not aware that his lordship had any concern with the plaintiff's account with them, or that the plaintiff was his farmingbailiff.

At the trial, the pass-book containing the said banking account, as entered and made up by the banking company, was put in, and proved to have been delivered to the plaintiff on the 20th of February, 1847.

The items on both sides of the account, down to the end of the year 1846, are very numerous, and are not thought to be material to be set out: but the following is a copy of the entries in the pass-book from January 1, 1847, to the end of the account, showing the receipts by the company from the plaintiff, and payments made by them on his checks. during the said month of January, with the respective dates of such receipts and payments:

The balance of the account shown by the said pass-book in favour of the plaintiff on the 1st of January, 1847, was, 1677. 14s. 11d., being the sum remaining after deducting the payments made by the company in 1846 from their receipts of the plaintiff during the same year. As well the receipts as the payments of 1846 consisted of sums of money paid in and drawn out on his own account and on account of the other parties.

The only sum paid in by the plaintiff to his credit after the above date, was, a check drawn by Vines & Tomlin on Barclay & Co., for 1801. 48. 8., dated the 19th of January, 1847, which was paid in by the plaintiff on the same date to the said Tunbridge branch bank, and was cashed in London by the said banking company, and was placed to the plaintiff's credit on the 20th of January. This check had been received by the plaintiff from Vines & Tomlin in payment for some wheat of Lord De L'Isle's arising from the said farm, which wheat the plaintiff, as such bailiff of his lordship as above mentioned, had, in December, 1846, employed Vines & Tomlin to sell.

*522]

It will be seen by the pass-book, that there were ten *of the plaintiff's checks paid by the company between the 1st and the 27th of January.

On the 19th of January, 1847, the balance appearing due to the plaintiff in his said banking account, was 181. 88. 9d. On the 20th of January, he was credited with 180l. 48. 8d., the proceeds of Vines & Tomlin's check, thereby making a balance in his favour of 1987. 138. 5d.: but, on the 22d, he drew out by two checks 417. 138., and, on subsequent days, the further amount of 281. 188. 7d., and thereby reduced the balance due to him to 1287. 1s. 10d., which still remains unpaid to him, and is the amount claimed in the action of debt, the banking account having remained in the same state down to the present time.

On the 27th of January, 1847, the plaintiff drew a check on the said banking company, in the usual form, for 271. 88. 8d., in favour of the Rev. R. Billing, or bearer, and which check he delivered on the same day to the Rev. R. Billing in payment of a debt of that amount due from the plaintiff to him. The Rev. R. Billing, through his banker's clerk, F. J. Headland, duly presented this check for payment, on the 29th of January, to the said branch bank at Tunbridge, where the plaintiff's account was kept; and the said company refused to pay the same, but referred the bearer of the check to the plaintiff.

On the 30th of January, 1847, the plaintiff also drew a check on the said company, in the usual form, for 8l. 158., payable to self, or bearer, and caused the same to be duly presented by his agent, Thomas Poole, for payment, on the same day, to the said branch bank: but the said company refused to pay the same, and referred the bearer thereof to the plaintiff.

The dishonour of these two checks arose out of the following circumstances: After Michaelmas, 1846, Lord De L'Isle became dissatisfied with the state of the accounts between himself and the plaintiff as his farm-bailiff, and, on the 11th of January, 1847, his lordship, *523] *through Mr. Glendinning, told the plaintiff he was not from that time to deal any more with Lord De L'Isle's property, but to confine his services to giving orders to the men, and to seeing that they Idid their work on the farm.

Some time between this date and the 28th of January, Lord De L'Isle, having learned that the plaintiff had an account with the said banking company, went with Mr. Glendinning to the said Tunbridge branch bank, and applied to the company's manager there for leave to inspect the plaintiff's banking account which the company kept in their books there according to the usage of bankers. This the manager refused, unless he had instructions to do so from the principal office of the bank in London. Lord De L'Isle, having applied to that office, obtained such instructions, and again, in company with Mr. Glendinning, applied to the Tunbridge branch bank on the 28th of January;