The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1861-01-29 00:00:00

Ltgal.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-4Ax. 21.

(Before Mr. BARON BIAMWRI.L- end CONNOR JURIES.:

DAVID V. NICHOI.6oN. NONIT LEST.

The plaintiff in this action. Henry John David, sued
the defendant, William Nichols.) to recover L'295,1. 3d.,
money lent.
The defendant pleaded never indebted, and that he
had satisfied the claim.. .

Mr. Henry James Wa, eounael for the plaintiff; Mr.
Serjeant Parry and Mr. M'Nainara rupteaented the
defendant. . . . . .

.....
It appeared that both the parties are students of
(rays-inn. The plaintiff re4les at
ii cy'e-inn. and the defendant St. George'toroad,
Brighton. According to the MM for the plaintiff he
was burn in London, but has resided for the greater
portion of Ids life in America. Pisa or six years since
being desirous to go to the English bar, he returned to
this country and entered Minitel( at Giay's-inn. He
there met the defendant, and ultimately an arrangement
Wee come to between the parties uuder which the
plaintiff went to board and lodge at the defendant's
Louse, at Elgin road, Notting-bill, paying £1 10s.
a week. The plaintiff WV. in the habit el lending
several seine of money, varying from ra to rm.. to the
dor,..,taat on hie 0 ll's. The ease for the plaintiff
Wee, thlt Ali liouA all former loans had been satixfiell by
the bill the items forming the present claim had subse-
quently accrued. This wee denied by the defendant,
and in f,mt was the re .lianne between the parties.
' Tic t•-• pray* la;4 case. and Was ex-
amined at considerable length with reelect to Ins
monetary transectiona with the defendant.
rrwa-examined by Mr„ Serg. ant Parry—ln July Mr.
Nicholson called on me. He ilhl not say that he wiehed
all transactions to ceate. Ile saitl I Mid spoken shirr-
ingly of him to a Mrs. Gomez ; that I had said he had
only a few hundreds a year, and was always in difficul-
ties. If I did say so, it was tme. I naked for a settle-
ment of our accounts. He said he wuuld mill and pay
next week. I did not tell him, on my honour, that all
the 10 U's I alll suing on hail been destroyed. He did
not wish a cloak ant arm chair which lie had eat me
to be set off against the coronet. I have pasaed by the
name of Kellar. I lived at Kensington-crescent.
medical genttemiin to attend • lady there in
her confinement. She died there. She had • child,
which ix still living.
Mr. fierjeant Parry—Was that lady the Hon. Mary
Jones. outer to Lord Ranelagb.

Wit:nese— No.
Mr. Serjeant Perry— Were you ever known u Kellar
in America?
itne-o; —Never. . _ _

Mr. tterjeant Parry—Were you married to Lord Rano.
MiNter in A merles ?
Wittie.—l was married to her at New York, on the
3rd of Mrrh, lS$. at the Rev. Mr. Williamson's
church. I wee married to her as Henry John David. I
regi•tered the death of the lady, who died at Keusing-
ton-ereveent, and also the,hirth of the child.. .

Mr. Serjeant Parry—Do you know u lady named
Caroline Van Doren? . _

Witoeas—l know a person you allude to as Caroline
Van Doren. . . _

Mr. Serjeant Parry—Were you triarried to bar?
Witness.— I was not.
Mr. fierjeant Parry—Did she follow yen to this country
with four or five children?
Witne.a—No ; with six children, if you please.
(Langhter.)
Mr. Baron Bramwell—Bmther Parry, le the number
of children material? (Laughter.)
Mr. &di:mit Parry —l)id you not call yourself Dr.
David and live at Wallowa ?
• . . .

Witness -I am quite entitled to do so, u I received
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. I never represented
myself to be • physician.
Mr. Serjeant Parry—What not as physician to the
Emperor of the Brazils? (lAughter.)
Witness—No.
Mr. Scrjesot Parry—Have you been to the Brazils—
to Rio Janeiro?
Witness—Yes.

_
Mr. rierjeant Parry—And you moor you did not re-
present yourself as phyeician to the Empress of the
Brasile,

Wittiesa —I do. I was in England three years before
I knew the defendant. I 100 l an office in Ittickingliani•
street, Strand. I lent money there. I held inyatlf out
as ready to make investments. I never was charged
with (rand in America. I never was clawed with de-
frauding a Ifni. Ross at New York. I was arrested
on • charge of forging a bill of 1:1,000 on Mr. Keene of
New York. I we taken from the nimllarity of my
name for a person named Dowd or Abrahams, and when
I proved who I was, Mr. Hall, the police magistrate,
diamissol the charge. I knew • Mr. Keene, of New
York. No true hill was found against inn there. I
presume it was Mr. Keene who mall. th• charge of
forgery against me. I met hint at Morley's Hotel,
Charimpeross, in 1866, and we bad some champagne
together. I was to be found anywhere for two years
afterwards ; but two the after I had left the
country for the benefit of itiv wife's health and my
OWII he made the charge against me, but lie never dared
to repeat it. 1 have never be. n a Presbyterian minixter.
I knew the Rev. Mr. Van Doren, the father of Caro.
line. . .

Mr. Serjeant Parry--The lady yon poke of
Witness--No. the lady you spoke of. (Laughter.)
Mr. lierjeant Parry—Well, we both 'poke of her.
Rs-examined—l took the name of Kellar at Kenaing•
ton_crevent, becauge that Wee the name of the lady
who resided there. She was known by that name
before I went to reside there. I obtained my degree at
U.. University of tlattenburg.
A letter front the defendant'a wife, who was then at
Brighton. was then put in. The writer acknowledged
the receipt tif half of a R 5 note from the plaintiff. and
expreamd a wish that he would take charge of and
educate one of her boys, who should not be a burden to
him.

Proofs of the payment of certain cheques having been
given, the plaintiff's came closed.
The case for the defence was that the hill of exchange
for ES°. dated May 3, had not in reality been given
until after the 1a.4 of the items claimed by the plaintiff
dated June 2rt. had been due, and that the hill, in point
of fact, covered the whole of the plaintiff's demand.
The defendant explained the matter, in reference to the
uno hill, in this way : he had received cheines from the
plaintiff, amounting to £33 and afterwards for
£ll—
Die ea. The plaintiff wanted to pay even
money into his bank, and the defendant, therefore, gave
the hill for TM, the amount of which was made up by
EIS Ifie. 3d. received at the time, the previous advances,
and 91. for the stamp. 'The defendant also contended
than were overcharges in the plaintiff's demand, and he
claimed • set off for • chair and stook, which he had
lent to the plaintiff.
Creerkezmnined—l preferred • charge against the
plaintiff for burying a lady in • wrong name. I did so
because I had been the nieans of introducing him to
respectable people, and as be could not be found I told
the inspector of police where he was. My charge was
that the lady was Lord Renelagh's sister. Lord
Renelath did not prefer the charge. I did so because
I ,thought his conduct so disgraceful that I did not
wish that luatioe should be defeated by trickery. Mr.
Soott, my attorney's clerk, was the complainant.
Re-examined--Before I made the charge I übtained
Ibis eertilleate.
Ti.. document was put in. It was a ropy of the
registry of deaths for Kensington town, of the death,
on the 19th October, 1859, at Kensinston-oreeoent, of
Mary Dakells, aged 36, wife of Henry Lakella, geniis-
/IAL