The Express.
London, England, 1855-08-11 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.-OBOYDON, AUGUST 10.

Five special jury causes were upon the List for trial this
morning, but the first three were referred to arbitration, and
in the other two the parties were not ready, and they were
consequently struck out; so that the whole five were dis•
posed of in lees than an hour, and his lordship then prc•
weeded to try common Jury eases.

COOtts 0. PoOLIY.
This was an action to recover 901, a baltyeat's annuity
upon a b-ind given by the defendant for 6,0001.; and there
was also a cutlet in trotter to recover possession of
• cheque for 1,5201., part of the consideration money t.f a
bow: for 6,0001 given for the purchase of a sionary
interest in property belonging to the plaintiff.
Mr. E. June*, M•C.• Mr. Brown, and Mr. Barrow ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Mr. M. Clambers, Q C., and Mr.
Peteradorff, were counsel for the defendant.
Mr. James, in his address to the jury, described the case
as one of a curious character, and be said he should lay the
facts before them as shortly as he could consistently with
the peculiar nature of the inquiry. The defendant in the
action was Mr. Ale:ander Bothell Pooley, who carried on
the business of a money agent, in fact, of a bill discounter,
in Nicholaelane, in the City. The plsiatiff, Mr. William
Frederick Cooke, was • young man—a very reckleu young
Man—and undoubtedly jut the sort of person upon whom
people like the defendant fattened and thrived, and who,
les in the present cue, they but too frequently plundered
of everything they possessed in the world. He became ac-
combated with the defendant in 1848, and at that time he
was entitled to property in reversion at the death of his
father to a very large amount, bath in the funds and in
land. As was too often the case under such circumstances,
he was desirous of raising money upon his expectations, and
at the inducement of the defendant he consented to dispose
of portions of his reversion to him at different times. The
transactiors, however, between them appeared to have been
of a very extraordieary character, for although the defend.
ant nominally was to give large sums of money for the
interest he purchased, he never did so in reality, bat used to
give notes of head, payable by instalments monthly, and it
was extraordinary that the plaintiff should so long have
submitted to the plunder that wee practised upon bim. This
course was, however, carried on until the month of August,
1852, when the plaintiff, pressed by his necessi-
ties, was desirous to dispose of the whole of his
remaining interest in the large property to which he would
have been entitled, and the defendant agreed to purchase
that interest for five thousand pounds, and the bond which
now formed the subject of inquiry wu prepared with a view
to carry out tee intention of the parties. The same course
of proceeding, however, was adopted by the defendant in
this as in all the other eases where advances were to be
made, and instead of the five thousand pounds being handed
over to the plaintiff, an annuity bond was executed by the
defendant, in addition to the original deed under which the
plaintiffs interests were conveyed, by which he undertook
to pay the plaintiff an annuity of 1801. per annum, by twelve
monthly instalments of 161. each. The supposed considera-
tion for thus annuity was stated to be the sum of 3,2761., which
would leave a sum o( 1,724/ still unaccountf d for ; and after
the deed of sale had been muted, the defendant handed
to the plaintiff a cheque for 1,5201., the remainder, as he
said, being deducted for interest and Nets, and the jury
would be surprised to hear the extraordinary course that
was then taken by the defendant. Almost immediately
after be bad given the cheque he informed the plaintiff that
at that moment there was so cub at his banker'. to meet its
and he requested him to hold it for a few dam and he cos.
seated to do so, and the fury would judge of the 'street&
nary influeau he possessed over the young man by the feet
that about • fortnight afterwards he induced him to return
him the cheque. When he did so he told him that be
would act as his banker, and he might draw upon him fen
the amount; bat since that time to the present the unfoe
tenets plaintiff had n received one farthing on account
of his cheque, and the defendant at length denied that be
was in any way entitled to it. The learned counsel cole
elided by stating that the result of these proceedings wee
that the p:aintiff had been deprived of every farthing be pees
d, and the whole of the large fortune he would have
been entitled to had been swallowed up. The present action
was, therefore, brought to recover one half year's annuity
upon the bond executed by the defendant, and also the
cheque for 1,5201., el which he had been deprived by the
defendant. The only plea the defendant had thought fit to
place upon the record was, that the deed In question had
ant been roperly enrolled according to the provisions of the
statist*. He should show, however, that there was no truth
in the pies, and that the deed had bees properly enrolled,
but he could not help observing that, under the circum-
stance,, the wickedness of Inch a plea could not be too
tbellfily_cusin'ained Of.
Mr. W. F. Cooke, the plaintiff in the station, was then
examined. He stated that he was 84 years of age, and he
was entitled ter considerable property upon the death of his
father, who was now near seventy years of age. He would
become entitled to • share of money in the funds amounting
to 30,0001., and landed property worth from 10,0001. to
15,0001. He bad unfortunately now none of this property
left. The defendant had swept away the greater part of it.
The annuity bond, upon which the present action was
brought, was all he had now to live noon. Rh first became
sequaiated with the defendant in 1848, when he earned on
business as a bill discounter, in Nicholu.lane, Lombard.
street, and they had several money transactions together,
and he disposed of various portions of the property he had
In reversion. In August, 1852, an arrangement was made,
under which he was to dispose of the whole of his remaining
interest, and a deed was executed by him and the defendant
with that object.
The deed was sailed for and read. It appeared from It
that the plaintiff and • brother were entitled, under the will
of their grandfather, to a sum of nearly 40,000 in the funds,
and also to • considerable quantity of freehold and oopyhold
peepeety. The deed also recited that the plaintiff had
bike esteetatisrett his there, sad that the defendant was
villas in give the sum of 5,0001. for the whole of the re
faring latrasit of the plaintiff, subiest to all the easels.
beam that bat been created, and aloe to the eantingeney
of lb hate bevies more eland's'''.
The examinalisa of the plaintiff wee then proceeded with.
He said that be bed /Maisel some money from the Bever.
be'loamy Waist am • portion of the property
be MI acsmy leseesetioas wit), the defeatist.
It was aneagoll Sat be wee use to be paid the 6,0001 con
siderseilm te ea Yes
es s seesselonee7 interest, but the de-
teadeat 01 Ma eaavitv of 1841. a year for life,
payable by y instalments. The coaehleretioa fee the

annuity was to be 3,0001. odd, and he expected to revive the
balance is stoney. The d.feadaot executed that deed
is December, 1852. (The deed was pot in and read. It
stated that 3,2761. was to be the amount utoonsideration for
the annuity sad also that this sum wu retained from the
6,0001., relined to in the deed of sale. The deed likewise
contained a proviso that if the plaintiff took any steps to
prevent the defendant from coming into the possession of
the property in which he had the reversionary interest, at
the death of his father, that in such ease the inanity bend
should be forfeited, and all payments that had been made
under it were to be refunded). The defendant gave him a
cheque for the Wanes of the 6,0001. oa the day when the
deed was executed, at the of of Mr. Austin, the
solicitor, who prepared it. He had sines returned that
cheque to the defendant The amount of the cheque
was only 1,5201., and the defendant said that
the "remaining 2001. would be absorbed by the
coati. Immediately after the defendant had given him the
cheque, be asked him not to present it, u he bad no cash
theft at hie banker's, and witness therefore did not present
It About three weeks afterwards the defendant asked him
to bring the cheque with bun, and he did so, and he then
asked him to give it to him, and he said he would place it
to his account, and he could draw upon him for the amount.
He gave the defendant the cheque upon that understanding,
and bad
wanted some money from the defendant on account of the
cheque, and he put him off two or three times upon different
excuses, and a length upon his pressing him he said he did
not ows him any money, and he should not give him
a farthing. Witness threatened to take proceedings
against him, and he told him that if he did BO
he would forfeit hie timid. It was in consequence of this
threat that he was induced not to take proceedings until the
present time. The annuity was paid regularly until last
year, but the last half year had not been paid.
In crose.examination by Mr. Chambers, the plaintiff said
that he bad borrowed money of his present attorney, Mr.
Thomas, and he had aseigned his annuity as security for the
repayment, and had instracted him to give the defendant
notice not to pay him the annuity, and he believed that was
the reason why the last half.year's annuity had not been
paid. Hb bad always received the annuity regularly every
half.year up to December. He bad n followed
any profusion, but the moment he attained hie majority,
he commenced borrowing money upon his reversion. The
first transaction he had was with the Reversionary Interest
Society, and he lived upoa the money he obtained from
them until he bums connected with the defendant. He
considered that the defendant was swindling him, but still
be kept on with him—he was compelled to do so, in fact,
because only a aerials slue of persons would deal with re.
versionary property. When the defendant told him that be
would not paylim • farthing, he did not quarrel with him,
because he knew that he was In his power, and he did not
apply to any Utensil upon the subject. Blau this transao •
ties he might have borrowed small sums of money of the
def ndant, sad upon one occasion he charged him 21. for the
loan of 101. Upon another occasion he asked the defendant to
pay 61.6.. to a club, and the promised to do so, bat did not.
Re-examined—Upon a former occasion, when the de-
fendant purchased some of his property, he retained a sum
of 3001, sad he drew upon him for it, and he thought the
same operation would have been carried out with the cheque
for 1,5201. He bad upen'some occasions asked the defend.
ant to advance him his annuity, and he charged kim 6!. for
the loan of 201. . . .

Mr. D. E. Austin, the solicitor employed to draw up the
deed of sale, proved that the defendant instructed him to
state the amount of the consideration to be 6,0001. He also
said that it was understood that the balance should be paid
in cub, sad, after the deed was executed, he saw the
defendant hand a cheque to the plaintiff. He could not
MO the exact figures upon the cheque, bat he saw sufficient
to satisfy him that it was a chigoe for a large amount.
Mr. Yardley, who bad formerly been clerk to the de-
fendant, proved that shortly after the 23rd of August,
1852, he saw a cheque for 1,6201. drawn in favour of Mr.
Cooke in the possession of the defendant, and in his pre-
sence he destroyed it.
Evidence was then given that the annuity bond bad been
duly enrolled in the Court of Chancery is conformity with
the provisions of the statute, and this closed the ease for the
plaintiff.
Mr. Chambers then addressed the jury on behalf of the
defendant.

Mr. Pooley, the defendant, was thea examined. Be said
that the understanding between him and the plaintiff was
that he was to give hint an annuity of 1801. a year for his
life, for the remainder of his sionary interest, whatever
it might be. He said the reason why the annuity bond was
not executed until December was that it was necessary to
have a stop order placed upon the funded property by the
Court of Chancery, and this could not be obtained at the
time the deed of sale was executed. Under these circus.
stances he suggested that a cheque for 3,5201. should be
given to the plaintiff as a kind of security that the annuity
bond should be executed, and when he had signed it the
plaintiff returned him the cheque. He said that he paid
the annuity regularly on the Ist of every month up to
December tut, and he should have paid the last half-year if
be had not received notice from the plaintiff's attorney not
to do so. After the deed was executed the plaintiff fre-
quently wrote to him for money, but he never aaked for the
restitution of the cheque.
In croes.examination by Mr. Jamey, the defendant said
he would rot swear that he did not instruct Mr. Austin to
state the amount of consideration money on the deed to be
5,0001. The value of the annuity was estimated at 3,2761.,
a-.d be gave the cheque for 1,5001 as security for that
amount. He could not state whether the annuity deed was
executed at Mr. Austin's office, but wherever it took place
be was sure that the plaintiff handed the cheque to hint at
the tame time. Since the transaction he had placed the
deed of tale as security with • get leman with whom he did
business, for the sum of 5,0001.
The letters referred to by Mr. Chambers were next pat
in and read. _ _ _ _ _

WMr James then re-called Mr. Austin, and he said he bad
no recollection of seeing the cheque handed by the plaintiff
to the defendant upon the occasion of the execution of the
annuity deed, and it turned out, upon reference to a memo-
randum made at the time, that the deed was not executed
when both parties were present.
Mr. James then made a most able reply upon the whole
case, calling upon the jury to disorlieve altogether the evi-
dence that had been given by the defendant.
The learned Judge baring summed up, the jury almost
immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full
amount sought to be recovered, viz , the half-year's interest
on the bond, and 1,5201., the amount of the cheque.