Manley v The Bank of England 1869

Date: 9 Feb 1869 [unknown]
Location: London, England, United Kingdom
Surname/tag: Manley

Contents 1 Introduction 2 People List 3 Article 1 Transcript 4 Article 2 Transcript 5 Sources

Introduction

The following article was published in several London newspapers on Wednesday 10 February 1869, concerning the plea made by Mary Ann Manley to retrieve stock which was rightfully hers. The first transcript is taken from the Express (London).^[1] Subsequently, on 12 and 13 February this was reported on newspapers up and down the country. The second transcript, for example, is taken from the Illustrated Berwick Journal, published on 12 February 1869.^[2]

People List

People named in the article, in the order that they are mentioned:

1. William Bovill, Lord Chief Justice
2. Mr J Brown, QC
3. Mr Francis
4. Sir John Karslake
5. Mr Archibald
6. Mr. W. Williams
7. Mary Ann Manley, plaintiff
8. John Manley, late husband, builder
9. Benjamin Manley, nephew of late husband
10. Mr. Thomas Smith, broker
11. Ann Morris, existing wife of Benjamin Manley

Article 1 Transcript

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS - FEB. 9
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in Middlesex, before Lord Chief
Justice Bovill and a Special Jury.)

MANLEY V. THE BANK OF ENGLAND

   The plaintiff in this case sued to recover damages upon
the ground that the Bank had refused to allow her to
transfer some stock which stood in her name
   Mr. J Brown, Q.C., and Mr. Francis appeared for the
plaintiff; and Sir J. Karslake, Mr. Archibald, and Mr.
W. Williams for the defendants.
   The circumstances of the case were somewhat peculiar.
The plaintiff, Mrs. Manley, lived in the neighbourhood of
New North-road, Hoxton, and she was the widow of a
building in a small way of business, who died on the 28th
January 1866. At this time there was standing in their
joint names 300l. New Three per Cent. Consols; and after
her husband's death the plaintiff sold out two sums,
leaving the amount of 162l. 10s., which now stood in her
name. On the 12th April, 1868, she went through the
ceremony of marriage with Benjamin Manley, her late
husband's nephew, but she afterwards found that this
marriage was void on the ground of consanguinity, and
also upon the further ground that Benjamin Manley had
at that time a wife living. The counsel for the plaintiff
said that there was no doubt that the principle object of Ben-
jamin Manley was to sell out the stock, and the two of
them went to do so; but finding that the illegality of the
marriage stood in the way of their selling, Benjamin
Manley left the plaintiff in the afternoon, saying that he
would return in the evening, but he had never since been
heard of. The question now raised was, whether the plaintiff
furnished the bank with sufficient evidence of the ille-
gality of her supposed marriage to entitle her to require
the bank to make transfer of the stock; but the
matter was surrounded by a good deal of technical diffi-
culty in reference to the way in which the pleadings
should be framed.
   The Lord Chief Justice, at the end of the plaintiff's
case, sent to the counsel a paper, which it was understood
contained the terms upon which he thought that the
litigation should be settled, but the suggestion was not
readily acceded to.
   Sir J. Karslake said that it was of the utmost impor-
tance to the bank that they should know accurately what
their legal position was. They dealt with 250,000,000l. of
stock in a year, and they had 300,000 accounts, and they
wanted to know what evidence of the illegality of a
marriage were bound to be satisfied with. Besides, if the
bank were not justified in requiring what they had for
years required, this might be a very good reason for apply-
ing for legislative interference.
   The Lord Chief Justice said no doubt the question was
an important one, but he did not think that this was a
very fit case in which to try it.
   Mr. Brown thought that it was peculiarly hard to have
the question litigated in the present case.
   A Juryman said that it would be ruin to the plaintiff.
   Sir J. Karslake - The bank would at once transfer the
stock.
   Lord Chief Justice Bovill was afraid that that amount
would all be consumed in litigation.
   A further consultation took place between the learned
counsel; and in the end the terms suggested by his lord-
ship were, with some modification, agreed to.
   Sir J. Karslake said that his clients wold not submit to
have a verdict against them, but a juror would be with-
drawn upon certain terms which had been arranged, and
the plaintiff's stock would be at once transferred.
   Juror withdrawn accordingly.

Article 2 Transcript

MANLEY V. GOVERNOR & COM-
PANY of the BANK OF ENGLAND.

   This was an action brought against the defendants
for refusing to transfer some New Three per Cent.
stock standing in the name of the plaintiff in the books
of the company, whereby she had been deprived of
the stock and greatly inconvenienced for the want of
the money. The declaration also prayed for a
mandamus commanding the defendants to transfer the
stock to the plaintiff. The defendants pleaded "Not
Guilty" and a plea that the plaintiff had not offered
the defendants reasonable evidence to enable them to
satisfy themselves that she was lawfully possessed of
and entitled to the said stock.
   It appeared that the plaintiff is the widow of one
John Manley, who died on the 28th of June, 1866.
At the time of his death £300 in the New Three per
Cent. Annuities was standing in the books of the Bank
of England in the joint names of John Manley and
Mary Ann Manley (the plaintiff). Of this sum £100
had since been sold out by the plaintiff, and a further
sum had been sold out by her, leaving a balance of
£162 10s. still standing in the books of the Bank in her
name. This sum the plaintiff employed a broker,
Mr. Thomas Smith, to sell out for her in July last, after
the Bank offices had been made aware of the fact that on
the 12th of April, 1868, the plaintiff had married again
with one Benjamin Manley, the nephew of her late hus-
band. In June last the plaintiff's second husband deserted
her, and it was discovered by the plaintiff that
her marriage with her second husband was not a valid
marriage. First, because he was within the prohibited
degrees of affinity, being her husband's nephew; and,
secondly, because he was already married to another
woman who was alive. There was a correspondence
with the bank officers, in which they were informed
of these facts, and a distringas was placed on the stock
by the plaintiff's attorney to prevent Benjamin Manley,
as her husband, selling the stock. The plaintiff then
attended with her broker at the Bank and demanded
a transfer of the stock, but the officers of the Bank
refused to transfer the stock, on the ground that they
were not satisfied by the evidence that the plaintiff's ac-
count of the matter was correct, and, thereupon, the
present action was brought. These facts, and also the
marriage of Benjamin Manley with Ann Morris at St.
St Mary's church, Paddington, on the 18th of March,
1867, that Ann Morris was yet alive, and that the
same Benjamin Manley married the plaintiff on the
12th of April, 1868, were then proved.
   His lordship here indicated that the evidence that
Benjamin Manley was a married man at the time he
married the plaintiff was proved, and that it was un-
necessary to to into the second point raised.
   Sir John Karslake said the Bank would have been
perfectly satisfied if the evidence had been given to
them.
   Mr. Brown was then proceeding to sum up the case,
and to contend that he was entitled to a verdict for his
client, when, at the suggestion of his Lordship,
   The parties agreed to withdraw a juror, the defendants
agreeing to transfer the stock.
   Juror withdrawn accordingly.

Sources

1. ↑ Published in the Express (London) on Wednesday 10 February 1869, page 4 of 4, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
   British Newspaper Archive on FindMyPast (accessed 10 March 2023)
2. ↑ Manley v. The Governor & Company of the Bank of England
   Published in the Illustrated Berwick Journal, 12 February 1869, page 3 of 8
   British Newspaper Archive on FindMyPast (accessed 10 March 2023)