The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1885-06-20 00:00:00

THE STOURBRIDGE OBSERVER.

Xocal nub Potrirt

ACTION BY A SOLICITOR TO RECOVER

COSTS.

At the Birmingham County Court on Tuesday,
before his Honour Judge Chalmers, this was
an action hrought by Mt • Thomas Charles
Cheston, solicitor. 148, Moor Street, Birmingham,
to recover from Mr. Wm. Brown, jeweller, Vyse
Street, 9,30 18s 41, costs alleged to be due. Mr.
Alfred Young, and subsequently Mr. Nathan (in-
structed by Mr. Hemmen* were for the plaintiff
and Ur. Pritchett (instructed by Mr. R. Docker
jen.) vi as for the defendant.
Mr, Young, in opening the case for the plaintiff,
said it seemed there bad been at StouOridge some
litigation between a young lady named Teomasine
Tomkins and Felice Brown, the son of the defend—
ant, who was employed as a clerk in his father's
office, the proceedings taking the form of an affilia-
tion EU", mons and an action for seductien, and the
magistrates had awarded a certain sum, under the
statute, to be paid by the son of the defendant to
the young lady for a certain number of years. The
defendent and his son, when on their way to Bir—
mingham, met in the railway carriage Mr. Miller
Corbet, the solicitor for the young lady, and they
. had some conversation, in the course of which Mr.
• Corbet observed that it would be wise to come to
some friend,y terms for the settlement of the matter,
and that something reasonable would be expeeted.
'Upon this the defendant said nothing would induce
him to came to any settlement, that he would fight
everything out to the last, and that he would sooner
spfnd £l,OOO in fighting than that Miss Tomkins
and her family should have a penny from his son
Suiting the action to the word, at a later period
when evtrything had gone wrong against young
Mr. Brown, the father and son went down to the
Birmingham Police Court to get some advice. They
there saw Mr. J. T. Kim!, one of the assi.tant-elerks
to the magistrates, and the &fondant asked- him
how the ord-r made by the Stourbridge magistrates
could be got rid of. Mr. King suggested that some
legal advice should be obtained. Ju t at that
moment Mr. Cheston came iu view, and Mr. King
remarked that that gentleman could advise him
very well upon the matter, adding, "You heve been
a client of his before." Thereupon the defendant
went to -Mr. Cheston, told him about the watte;e
and instt ueted him to take proceedings to quash the
ordt r made by the magistrates, remarking that if he
wanted any information he Inuit go to his son far it.
Proceedings were taken in London to g- t rid of the
erder, but they filed; and afterwards when Mr.
Cheston's bill had to be paid defendant denied that
he ever instructed him ; that he should not pay a
shilling, and that his son was responsible. it was
now cantended that the son retained Mr. Cheston,
and that certain letters which passed between Mr.
Cheston and the son were evidence a that.

Mr. Cerbet, Mr. King, Mr. Cheston, and other
witnesses were examined and cross-examined.

Mr. Kinc, spoke to hearing a conversation at the
Public Office between the defendant and Mr. Ches-
ton with regard to the retaining of the services of
the latter.

At the end of the plaintiff's case Mr. Pritchott
argued that there was no evidence of a p3rsonal re-
tainer by the father, who was only a guarantor in
th 3 matter.

The Judge held that there was aniple evidence.
Mr. Pritchett then contended there was a joint
retainer, and that as the pl.tintiff's evidence would
be c9ntradie-ed the retainer ought to b.> in writing.
tie pointed out that some of the uills were made out
to the son, and sent to the son at the tether's house,
and asked the jury to say that if the plaintiff had
regarded the father alone as responsible he would
never hare pursued such a course.
The defendant was then put into the witness box
and during hia examination, his evidence entirely
contradicted that of the pl,intiff, Mr Nathan asked
r hat all means of communication between the de-
fendant and his son should be cut oil' until the c!ose
of the case, adding that there was pet-jury beiug
committed on one side or the other, and he proposed
to take the matter up.

't he application was granted.
Deiemiant, in crce-s-examination, said his son ha I
recently filed his petition. The at•sets were nit. He
paid the costs of the filing of the petition. Tho
lather of Miss T,mkins was one of the creditors.
tie denied that he told Mr. Corbet that he woil I
sooner fight the case and pay £l,OOO than settle
the matter. What he did sty was that if he was his
son he would sooner £l,OOO than marry Miss Toni
kilts, His son was a respectab!e young man for
anything he knew to the contrary. It was nit he
who asked Mr. King for advice, but his sou. Ile
nad had no conversation with Mr. Cheston at the
Public Office in the pet sence of Mr. King and Mr.
Fitter.

In re examination the defendant said that at the
time his son filed his petition there was a com-
mitment order out against him, and as he did nit
want his son to go to prison he paid tor the fili,g of
the petition, which got rid of the commitment order.
Felice Brown was called and deni,d that him

father, at the Public OMo,, spoke to Mr. Cheston,
or took any part in the conversation which followed
at Mr. Cheston's office. His lather did not instruct
or retain Mr. Cheston in his presence. He him•
self on one occasion paid Mr. Cheston .25, but never
got a receipt for it. Later on a bill of costs was
presented to him, made out to "Wm. Brown," and
he at once pointed out that it should have been
made out to himself; but the clerk siid that to alter
the name would change the whole ten our of the
bill, That was why the alteration was not made.
He did not r.oollect his father eve 7 saying more to
Mr. Cheston in his presence than "Good morning."
Mr. Pritchett asked his Honour to give a decision
on the point he had raised as to the necessity for a
written authority in cases where there was a direct
and emphatic contradiction of evidence.
His Honour ruled against him, and in summing
up the case said the question for the jury was which
of the two sets of witnesses did they believe, and
who was it that employed Mr. Chesion ?
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and
judgement was given according,y, his Honour
awarding costs on the higher scale,