The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-12-04 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY ACTION AGAINST

AN ATTORNEY.

In the Court of Q teen's Bench, Nov. 30, the cause of
" sheridan a Fr om" has been tried, and w 1,3 as action
against an attorney for negligence in the deletice of an
action.
The plaintiff was a widow, and was sued for a
quantity of household furniture she had ordered during
her husband's lifetime in her maiden name. She had
b,gun to pay by instalments. She was sued for
the residue and she consulted the defendant. He
;liaised her in effect that as she must ultimately
pay for the goods, if not to the tradesman, to '
her husband's assignees, she had better settle
the action. Unfortunately, however, a clerk
wrote rather a peremptory letter to the attorney
, on the other side, the result of which was that he
s4ned judgment, and issued execution for the
amount remaining due, the total claim being £407,
from which £126 were to be deducted for payments.
She now complained of her attorney for not having de-
fended the action. insisting that, as being a married
woman at the time of the order, she had a clear de-
fence. The attorney, however, being examined, de-
clar-d that the advice he had given her was as to what
was best for her on the whola, and not tner-ly in strict
law. In the result, the Lord Chief Justice anggestei
that it VIDA a case for a eettlemerc, and, acting on this
hint, Sir J. Karelake aereedto the terms suggested on
the other side, the effect of which was that a juror was
withdrawn.
The Lord Chief Justice observed that be thought
the advice the wtorney bad given was, on the whole,
the best that could be given morally or legally.

The FIRST TRIAL UNDER a NEW ACT,

In the Court of Exchequer, in London, the cause of
" Freestone v, Bird," has been tried, and was an action
to recover penalties nnder the sth section of the 11th
and 18th Vict., c. 102, from Mr. Win. Ridman Bird,
mustard and vinegar manufacturer at Cambridge, for
inflicting and threatening the infliction of injury,
damage, harm, and loss upon and against the plaintiff,"
on account if having voted at the election in Novem-
her, 1868, for the borough and county of Cambridge.
Tile plaintiff sued for two penalties of L'so each. The
defendant pleaded "not guilty."
The learned Judge said that, as far as he knew, this
was the first action of the kind which bad been brought
under the Act of Parliament._
_ . .

It appeared that iliej)-17s-in—iiff had been in the service
of the defendant at v.evkly wages for 25 years, and for
13 more years in the service of Mr. Poster, the d fen-
dant's predecessor in business. The plaMtiff enter-
tained strong opinions upon the Irish Church question,
and voted for the Conservative candidates both in the
borough and county elections. Shortly afterwards the
defendant said they were not comfortable togei her.
and that they had better part The plaintiff asked
him if he had any complaint to make about the
husineot, and he said he had not; but that he was
sorry he (the plaintiff) had gone and voted at the
elections. He also complained of his having spoken
at a meeting in the theatre against some of his friends
and relatives. The defendant offered him a month's
wages, which he refused to take, claiming six mouths'
notice. The plaintiff said, "I suppose I must gs to
the union for what you care?" Tau defendant replied,
" You have got too good a head on your shoulders for
that, but your Tory friends will perhaps be more kind
to you than I have been." In the previous March
the defendant gave him a gratuity of 1:5 for good
conduct.
Upon this evidence Mr. Id. Chambers said he should
not eroareexamine the plaintiff, and submitted that
under the Act of Parliament there was no evidence to
go to the jury.
Mr. Baron 51arrin sa'cl, after the election the de-
f. miens. had availed himself of his right to dismiss the
plaintiff, which was very different to threatening to
di.mies him or dismissing him before the election. Ile
did not think the action was maintidnsble under the
statute. To sustain the aution there newt be some in.
jury, &Image, harm, or loss sustained hy the plaintiff.
Mr. If..lker admitted that he could not alter the
facts as deprood to by the plaintiff.
Mr. Baron Martin: I remember some cases like this,
but they all occurred before the election.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited ; but the learned
judge intimated that the plaintiff might take the
opinion of the court absve upon the law.