The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-03-18 00:00:00

SINGULAR CASE TO RECOVER TITLE
DEEDS.

COX v. FAWKENER.

This was an action heard before Lord Chief
rnstice Bovill, at the Stafford Assizes, on Mon.

day last, to recover possession of the title deeds
of some property at Cradley, which had been
stolen from Mr. Cox, the plaintiff, and on which
money was said to have been advanced.
Mr. Powell, Q.C., and Mr. Griffith were coun-
sel for the plaintiff, and Mr. Jelf and Mr. Busau•
quet represented the defendant.
Mr. Powell said the plaintiff was a nailmaker
at Two Gates, Cradley, where he was possessed
of some little property, and the defendant was a
furnaceman, at Stourbridge. The plaintiff kept
his title deeds in one of the drawers in the kit-
chen of his cottage. For several years he had
living with him an orphan boy whom he had
brought up, but at length this boy emigrated.
In June, 1867, the plaintiff received a letter from
Mr. Rowlanfl Price, solicitor, Stourbridge (since
deceased), stating that the latter wished to see
Mr. Cox. who thereupon repaired to Mr. Price's
office, where he learned that his title deeds had
been stolen, and that d young man who said his
name was Cox, and that lie had become the
owner of the property through the death of the
plaintiff, had taken them to Mr. Price, through
whom the defendant had advanced X5O upon
them. It was suspected that the young man in
question was Samuel Pillow, the orphan adopted
by Cox, and this suspicion was strengthened by
Pillow disappearing. The plaintiff told Mr.
Price that tie had given no one authority to
pledge his deeds, and that he had not received a
,artiatug of the A:5O, and therefore he insisted on
toe deeds being restored to him. A wrrrant was
ta,ued for the apprehension of Pillow, and Cox
instructed his attorney to spply to Mr. Price for
. . . _ .

the parchments. Mr. Price offered to return
them if Cox would pay him £2O towards the .t5O
that had been advanced upon them, but the
plaintiff refused to do so, and afterwards do•
manded the deeds of Fawkener. Cox knew that
Fawkener had had possession of the deeds, be-
eause about six months after the money had
been advanced thy. latter called upon hint for it
interest, und said he had the papers which In
would give up if the plaintiff would pay hitn th
.E5O he had advanced. The learned Counsel
concluded by saying that if the defendant had
! been robbed by any one it was his own fault, as
! he should have made proper inquiry into the
ownership of the property, and as to whether the
owner was alive or dead, before he advanced the
money.
... _ .

Tiie plaintiff, who is a man 81 years old, was
then called, and wive his account of the transac-
tion. He said the property to which the deeds
referred consisted of a nailtuaker's shop and
house, the value of which was about h%:00. He
had missed the deeds before he received Mr.
Price's letter. Mt. Price told him he had them
and should keep them. Witness did not know
who took them ; he believed there were several
of them joined together. Mr. Price, jun., told
him that two men came to the office and after
the money was paid one went one way and the
other went another. The witness stated that
after Pillow left the country two documents were
found in the house. (These consisted of receipts
for the deeds, and a bill of costs).
Mr. Homer, plaintiff's solicitor, gave evidence
as to interviews he had had with Mr. Price, res-
pecting the deeds. He (witness) had suggested
to defendant's solicitors, that as both plaintiff
and defendant were working men the action
should be tried at the County Court.
Another witness deposed to hearing defendant
tell the plaildiff at the latter end of August,
1871, that he had got the writings.
Mr. Jeff, for the defence, contended that Mr.
Homer had exonerated Fawkener from all lia.

bility in respect of the deeds by submitting to
the terms offered by the late Mr. Price, viz.,
that lie would ruse the money to pay Fawkener
and give up the deeds to Mr. Homer as soon as
be could. The learnad Counsel said he should
..;:ow that Fawkener had given up the deeds lo
;r. Price, and therefore, if an adverse verdict
A ere to be returned against him in this case he
would he a perfectly innocent sufferer. The
learned Counsel also said he should show that
the plaintiff knew something about the improper
use made of his deeds by Pillow and participated
in the proceeds of them, and thus, although he
might not have known what the exact nature of
the transaction was, yet he was substantially cog-
nisant of the transaction, and therefore there
could be no wrongful detention on the part of
the defendant. Mr. Jeff further said that the
old man knew that Pillow was going to get out
of the way, and yet would give no information
with the view of putting justice on the right
cent; he even denied to a policeman who had
the warrant, that he knew anything about the
man Pillow.
Mr. Price, jun., son of the late hi.t. Rowland Price,
and who had substantially acted as attorney for the dr.
fence, gave an account of the circumstances under which :
the deeds were taken to his father's office, and instruc-
tions given for a conveyance to be prepared of a part of
the property, and the circumstances under whirl, a mort-
gage was afterwards completed to the defendant. When
the old man represented himself to be the owner of the
writings, and demanded that they should be given up to
him, witness believed he did not know what he NV:In talk-
ing about, and told him so. It was about a month be-
fore this that the defendant had the deeds. Mr. Homer
subsequently called upon Mr. Price, and in the January
following the defendant gave up the deeds to the de.
ceased. . . . .

Evidence was then called with the view to show that
Pthow wx4 in possession of rather more money than
usual about the time of the mortgage, and that the old
man was e.ognisant of it.