The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-03-02 00:00:00

CHAMBERS v. PRESCOTT.

This was an action tried at Birmingham County Court
on Thursday, before a jury, in which the plaintiff, Mr. J.
S. Chambers, irenmaster, Brierley Hill, sought`to reco-
ver the sum of £4O from Mr. (3r. W. Prescott, solicitor,
of this town, for money lent to him on July 31, 1871 ;
and also to recover £1 65 3d for goods sold and delivered
and materials provided. Mr. &Waitron (Oxford Circuit)
instructed by Mr. Horafray (firm of Bombay and Elol-
berton), Brierley Hill, appeared for the plaintiff; and
Mr. Young and Mr. J. Smith (Oxford Circuit) appeared
for the defendent.
This case, an our readers will reeollect, bad been pre.
viousely heard at the County Court in this town, before
Kr. Lordale Warren, Deputy Judge,
.Judge when a verdict was
given for the plaintiff by the jury. A new trial was then
applied for by Mr. Prescott on the ground that the ver-
dict was not in secordance with the evidenee, and to give
him the opportunity of filing • number of allidavite to
prove his case. The application was granted, and the
afterwards changed to Birmingham on the ground
that the transaction was alleged to have taken place in

that town.
Mr. Motteram detailed the facts, and said that the
plaintiff had been in partnership with Mr. T. Parker,
Mersey Wagon Wheel Works, Stourbridge. On July 13th
Hr. Chambers and Mr. Prescott came to Birmingham,
and during the journey the defendant asked the plaintiff
to lend him .£lO, as he had some business to attend to in
London. When they arrived in Birmingham, they met
Mr. Parker at the Acorn Hotel. Temple street, when the
plaintiff ached Mr. Parker for ED. Mr. Parker requested
them to go into No. 3 room, where he would follow them
in a few minutes. He did so, and handed £lO to the
plaintiff, who gave it to the defendant. In the following
September the plaintiff and defendant quarrelled, when
the latter sent in hi., bill to Messrs. Chambers and Parker,
amounting to £9O, for Chancery costs, and accompanied
the bill with a bankruptcy notice, and threatened, unless
it were paid immediately, he would make them both
bankrupts. Messrs. Homfray and Holberton were in.
structed to pay the defendant's bill, and before doing so
mentioned to the defendant that he owed the plaintiff
£-10. Ile, however, denied it, and afterwards received '
his bill in full. Mr. Motteram then went into a number
of affidavits which had been filed on both shim, by solici•
tors, who had attended a meeting of creditors of Messrs.
H arper and Tildesley, at the Queen's Hotel, Birmingham,
on July 13. The money was alleged to have been lent at
half-past twelve o'clock on that date, at the Acorn Hotel,
whilst the defendant bad stated that he was at the
Queen's Hotel from twelve o'clock until after the meet-
ing of creditors, which did not commence until nearly one
o'clock. The affidavits filed in the interest of plaintiff
proved that the meeting of creditors on July 13 was
merely a formal one, aud only lasted a short time The
meeting was called for twelve o'clock, but one of the gen-
tlemen said at that time there was no one present con-
nected with the meeting. Ins few minutes afterwards
the plaintiff and defendant looked in the room, bat left
immediately, and did not return until nearly one o'clock.
Other gentlemen also corroborated as to the commence-
ment of the business of the meeting. On the other
hand, affidavits had been sworn to for the defendant, in
which it wag stated that Mr. Prescott was seen the room
shortly after twelve o'clock, and remain there until the
close of the meeting. Counter affidavits had been filed
by several of the same gentlemen, stating that they were
mistaken. The claim for £1 6a 3d was for glass and
work. The defendant wee having his house altered last
summer, when he had been to Mr. Dudley, glass mar.
chant, for glass, but was refused. The plaintiff, at the
request of the defendant, ordered the quantity of glass
he required, and paid for it.
The plaintiff was called, and repeated the evidence he
had given on the former occasion, and stated that the
reason he had not applied to the defendant for the £4O
before they received his bill was because they owed him
more money.
The item claimed for glass was proved by George
Goodyear, • man employed by Mr. Parker, at his works
in this town.
Mr. Parker was afterwards called, and eorroboreted the
plaintiff's evidense.
Several other witn were also examined.
Mr. Smith addressed the jury for the define*, and de-
signated the union as a conspirsey.
The defendant was called, and said he went into
No. 8 room at the Acorn with regard to • loan, and he
emphatically denied that he left the Queen's Hotel until
he went to dinner at the Acorn Hotel, consequently he
did not loiter about the streets between twelve and one
_o'clock. The plaintiff bad never asked him for money;
and the first time he heard of the SCO was after Mr.
Holberton paid him his but.
Mr. Motteram: Now, is this the description you gave
ot yourself at Stourbridge ?—" I have been a bankrupt,
1 have been in gaol several times, I have been several
times convicted by the Magistrates, and my property is
in the hands of trustees for the benefit of my children."
Mr. Prescott : Allow me to explain—
Mr. Motteram: No; answer the question. Is it the
way in which you described yourself?
Mr. Prescott : It is true.
Mr. Motteram : Your counsel has said something about
your eccentricities. Were you convicted for an indecent
somaalt upon a female.
Dlr. Prescott : Yes, for a common assault. I pleaded
guilty under the advice of my counsel, knowing that the
Magistrates were enemies of mine.
Mr. Motteram : You have no right is say that. Will
you swear that you pleaded guilty?
Mr. Prescott: Allow me to explain
Mr. Motteram: Answer the question, sir, yes or:no.
Mr. Prescott: No, I did not plead guilty. The Ma-
gistrates gave me the alternative either to take my trial
or be fined.
Mr. Motteram : Did you not call witnesses, and did OM
the Magistrates come to the conclusion to give you the
advantage of either allowing you to plead guilty, or be
committed to take your trial at Worcester!
Mr. Prescott: Butt pleaded guilty under the advice of
my counsel to a common assault.
Mr. Motteram : And you were c,mvicted in the sum of
1:5 tor the assault. Have you been convicted by the Ma
gistrates iso leas than seven times?
Mr. Prescott: No.
Mr. Motteram : Did you not take means to obtain
copies of Mr. Parker's percerdinee in liquidation at
Derby?
Mr. Pre.cott : I had five.
Mr. Motteram: Upon your oath will you not swear that
you bud twice that number?
Mr. Prescott I loss five copies out of my coat pocket,
and therefore hat five more prase.
Mr. Motteram : Then that makes tea. Now, did you
not send tuose copies out to SUMO Of Mr. Parker's
creditors?
Mr. Pr, scat: Sc; I will swear.
Mr. Motiecans : NCO at your order?
Mr. Prescott: No.
Mr. Motteram : Then why did you have fresh copies
made?
Mr. Prescott: For in, own use.
Mr. Motteram : Did you not throw one of the copies
into the shop of Mr. Hill. the butcher?
Mr. Prescott : No, I did not.
Mr. Motteram: Did you not write to Mr. Brown, one
of Kr. Porker's former creditors, stating that you would
be obliged if Ile would render you any assistance as to
Parker's character and truthfulness, or any trick Parker
had served him, which yea could use in cross-examine
don in the present case?
Mr. Prescott: I wrote to Mr. Brown, but to no one
else.
Mr. Motteram: Now, did you not write to the Stour.
bridge Gas Company, with whom Mr. Parker is now
dealing?
Mr. Prescott: I have no recollection.
Mr. Motteram; Nor to Mr. H. Smith? •
Mr. Prescott: I have no recollection.
Copies of the proceedings in liquidation, addressed to
the Gas Company. Mr. Smith, and Mr. Brown, were pro-
duced arid handed to the jury, together with letters of
Sir. Prescott for them to compare the writing.
Mr. Prescott said he had no knowledge who sent the
copies to the Gas Company, Mr. H. Smith, or Messrs
Harris and Pearson.
In re-examination, the defendant said his object for
obtaining copies of Mr. Parker's liquidation proceedings
was for materials to be used in the present case. He
farther stated that when convicted at Simi:midge for a
common assault he preferred to have the matter sum-
marily dealt with thou to he sent to the Sessions.
Mr. Charles Augustus liarrieon (of the firm of Laundy,
Harrison' and Herne) Bald he had had business relations
with Me. Parker. From what he knew of that gentleman
he should not consider him a credible person. He would
net berieve him upon his oath.
Croat-examined by Mr. Mutterer's: Had never heard
him give evidence. Witness was a confidential account.
ant, but IrAti 110 t employed confidentially by Parker him.
self in this matter. In a confidential character he did
apply to Mr. Parker far hie books.
Mr. Motteram : Dist you think it consistent with the
duty of a public accountant, having obtained certain in-
formation confidentially, to disclose it!
Witness ; Certainly not.
Mr. Blotter= : How was it, then, that you disclosed
the information you obtained to Mr. Prescott?
Witness: 1 did not.
Mr. Motteram : To say one else?
Witness: No, never. Ido not know bow he obtained
that information.
After some witnesses had been examined relative to the
creditors' meeting at the Queen's Hotel, on the 13th of
July, and the presence of Ms. Prescott there, Thomas
Gower, formerly a clerk to Mr. Parker, was called and
in reply to a question from Mr. Smith, said he did not
'link him a credible person. He would not believe him
a his oath.
Mr. Motteram : When did you get your information
bout his character?
Witness: In the year 1888 or 1870.
Mr. Motteram: And you remained in his envies after-
wards?

think

about

Wits...: Yes, dr.
Mr. Mottenun : And had your wages advanced
Witness : Yes, sir—(laughter).
Mr. Material: And thanked him for it?
Witness: Yes, sir—(laughter).
Mr. Motterant: You may go down.
Hobert Jarrett, publican said he had known Mr... _
for ten or twelve years. Had lived next door to his
works, and been in his service. Didn't believe he was a
credible person.
Mr. Smith: Would you believe him upon hi* Oath I
No. I met any as I should—(laughter).
Mr. Mottenun : Did any of his men frequent your
place ?—Yes.
Mr. blotters=: When did they cease to drink at your
house don't know: but Parker said he would seek
every one that went into my house.
Mr. Motteram : And, of course, after that, you would
naturally not believe him on bill sath—(laaghter).
By Mr. Smith: He said he would ruin me and my
house in three months, because I refused to do some dan-
gerous work to the machinery.
Mr. W. H. Hairpin, solicitor, Walsall, and hi. clerk,
Robert Evans, were also examined.
Mr. Motteram then addressed the jury for the plaintiff.
His Honour briefly summed up. He said that the jury
could not find a verdict for either side without imputing
the grouest perjury to the opposite side. The question

Porker