tions compared with the corresponding month of last year. This, however, is believed to be principally attributable to the severe frost, the effects of which were temporarily manifested in a like degree on the railway traffic of the United Kingdom. The chief items showing a decrease are cotton and woollen yarns-articles of less importance than those involving more extensive manufacturing labour. In the shipments of the higher descriptions both of cotton and woollen goods there has been an augmentation. The following table shows the exact increase or decrease under each head :DECLARED VALUE OF EXPORTATIONS.

With regard to imported articles, grain and flour of course exhibit the most remarkable totals, the quantities taken representing a value of more

168,740

9,950

15,755

4,425

24,741

37,813

23.781

10,195

40,118

6,021

6,011

238

1,207

7,165

26,482

8,219

918,465

12,707

250,788 142,099

108,699

than £200,000, against about £500,000 in the corresponding month of 1860. 55 per cent. of this total was obtained from the United States, and 20 per cent. from France. The consumption of other articles of food and luxury has also been large, nearly the whole of them showing a considerable increase over January, 1860.

Subjoined are the quantities of provisions, &c., imported and taken for home consumption :

The following are the comparative imports and exports of raw material:

THE EXTENSIVE FRAUDS ON THE COMMERCIAL BANK.. THE examination of John Durden, late a ledger clerk in the establishment, and James Holcroft, engaged in the leather trade in Hatton Garden, charged with having defrauded the Commercial Bank to the extent of £66,992, has occupied the attention of Mr. Henry, at Bow Street, on several occasions during the past month; the prosecution being conducted by Mr. Humphreys, Durden being defended by Mr. Metcalfe, and Holcroft by Mr. Sleigh. Although the defalcations of the prisoner Durden, amount in the aggregate to the sum above named, it was necessary, in order to establish a case against both prisoners, to proceed with several charges, each involving only comparatively small amounts. It appears from the statement of Mr. Humphreys, and confirmed by a number of witnesses, that the respective sums of £66. 78. 4d. were paid into the bank on the 3rd of January, to the account of Mr. S. W. Hooper, £156. 88. 6d. on the 7th January, to the account of Messrs. Hampton and Russell, and £149. 68. Id., on the 14th January, to the account of Mr. Wm. Hale. These three sums had been posted in the handwriting of Durden, not only to the several accounts to which they have actually been paid, but also to that of the prisoner Holcroft. On the 3rd January the account of Holcroft, deducting from it the sum which had been falsely entered to his credit, but assuming the balance at the commencement of the year to have been correctly stated, was overdrawn to the amount of £28. 8s. 4d.; on the 7th January, deducting the amounts of the two false entries, it was overdrawn to the extent of £57. 188. 4d.; and on the 14th January, deducting the amount of the three false entries, it was overdrawn £203. 17s. 7d.; so that as each false entry was made the amount of the overdrawing was proportionately increased. It further appeared that towards the latter end of last year Holcroft compounded with his creditors by paying 48. in the pound, and it was shown that certain sums had been paid out of the Commercial Bank to cheques drawn on Holcroft's account, and that the notes with which those cheques were paid, were afterwards used in payment of the composition with his creditors, by a friend of his, named David Allen Ramsey. A similar course of proceeding took place a short time previous, with respect to an action a bill of exchange for £152, brought against Holcroft on behalf of the London Joint-Stock Bank. It also appeared that Holcroft, when he failed, placed his affairs in the first instance in the hands of Mr. Thos. Watson, an accountant, to whom he stated that Durden had been a good friend to him and was a creditor to a large amount, but that he did not wish his name to appear in the list. Mr. Watson strongly recommended him to put down the name of every creditor, but on his refusal to do so, Mr. Watson withdrew from the case; Holcroft then employed Messrs. Paul and Turner, to whom he said nothing about Durden being a creditor, nor was there any mention of his name in Holcroft's books. There were various collateral circumstances gone into, but the fore

going are the main facts of the case, as proved against the prisoners, upon which they will be eventually committed for trial. Several applications were made to admit the prisoners to bail, but which were peremptorily refused by Mr. Henry.

In the course of the investigation, the lax manner in which the business was conducted at the Henrietta Street branch, and which resulted in the perpetration of such enormous frauds, was elicited in the following cross-examination by Mr. Metcalfe of Mr. Thomas Dyson, one of the clerks :

"The witness said, when money is paid in by a customer it is at once entered in the cash-book, after which it is passed to another cashier who enters it in the waste-book. A ticket is handed with it, and the entry is made from that ticket. One clerk is employed on that duty, and sometimes two. There is no further entry from the waste-book, but it is checked that evening. The ledger-keeper makes his entries from the cash-book. The ledger-keeper, with the assistance of a junior clerk, checks the entries in the ledger. Mr. Metcalfe: Do you mean to say that the person who makes the entries is the person who checks them?-The Witness: That is so. Mr. Metcalfe: What! He checks his own entries ?—The Witness: Yes, sir. Mr. Metcalfe: With the assistance of a junior?-The Witness: Yes. Mr. Metcalfe: Which junior clerk I suppose it is not the boy who sweeps out the shop The Witness: It is a youth who has been about two years in the office. Mr. Metcalfe Does the person who makes the entry take the ledger, and the boy the cash-book ?-The Witness: Yes. Mr. Metcalfe: Is it always the same clerk ?-The Witness: Not always. Mr. Henry Is it anybody's duty to check the cash-book itself?—The Witness Only by comparing it with the ledger. Mr. Henry: What do you understand by comparing it? The same eyes do not see both books The Witness: No. Mr. Metcalfe: When the items are added up and a total entered, does anybody check that?—The Witness: I think it is recast the next morning, but I am not quite sure."

Banking and Commercial Law.

FOREIGN BILLS OF EXCHANGE-RECAMBIO.

A CASE recently decided, "Suse v. Pomp," (7 Jurist, p. 166) raised this question: whether upon a bill of exchange drawn in England on a foreign country, and dishonoured, the holder had this option either to claim repayment of the amount paid for the bill, or otherwise to draw another bill, called "the recambio," upon the drawer or endorser from whom he purchased it, for such a sum as in English money would, at the time the bill became due, have been exchangeable at the foreign place, for the amount of foreign money which the acceptor ought to

have paid on presentment at the foreign place. A bill was drawn at Liverpool, at four months, by Busch and Co., for £750 at the exchange, upon Karl von Thornton, at Vienna, and was by him accepted. It was endorsed "Pay Messrs. Suse or order at the exchange of 11 guilders 5 cents new Austrian currency per pound, sterling value of the same."

The plaintiff claimed from the defendant the amount he had received from the plaintiff, with interest. The defendant asserted that he was only liable for the amount of English money which would have purchased at Vienna, when the bills were due, the number of florins endorsed on the bill, and which the acceptor ought to have paid, together with expenses incident to the dishonour. The plaintiff rejoined that, by a custom of merchants, the holder of a dishonoured foreign bill had a right at his option, either to claim the amount paid by him for the bill, with interest and damages, or to draw upon the drawer or endorser, from whom he purchased it, another bill for such a sum of money as would at the time the bill became due, have been exchangeable in Vienna for the number of florins the acceptor ought to have paid, with expenses. The question was whether this alleged custom of merchants could be supported. It is obvious that, as observed by the Court in delivering judgment, if it could it would contradict the bill; it would entitle the holder, not to what the bill was for on the face of it, viz., the sum of £750 sterling at the exchange, but some other sum, or a sum which at least might be a quite different sum. The contract by the endorser is, that if the drawee shall not at maturity pay the bill, he the endorser will pay the amount which the drawee ought to have paid; that is, the amount specified in the bill. "The holder," said Mr. J. Byles "has in effect bought from the endorser so many Austrian florins to be received in Vienna on that day. It should seem to follow that on non-payment by the drawee, the holder is entitled as against the endorser, to as much English money as would have enabled him in Vienna on that day, to purchase as many Austrian florins as he ought to have received from the drawee; and further to

the

The most obvious and

e expense necessary to obtain them. direct mode of obtaining that English money, is to draw in Vienna on the endorsers in England a bill at sight, for as much English money as would purchase the required number of Austrian florins at the actual rate of exchange on the day of dishonour; and, to include in the amount the interest and necessary expense of the transaction. Although in English practice this re-exchange bill (or recambio) is seldom drawn, the theory of the transaction is as we have described it. If the