The Express.
London, England, 1849-12-04 00:00:00

Crowe:mined—l am no relation of the deceased, Mr.
Broughton. I cannot swear I wee his wife, but I hod been
presented before a magistrate in France as his wife, and I
was informs] that ceremony was equivalent to a marriage.
I have always considered myself as his wife. I have never
seen the defendant. I expected to have hail tbis bond set-
tled upon me, but it was not. I live now at 6, Arundel-
street, Hajmarket, alone with my son. The complaint
from which thafeall,atheisMar.miTuish. D.
wßasroseuitteotinmseusifealmreelowtasircrxe-
presside.—The defendant's ease being closed,
A Juror observed that it did cot appear the defendant had
made say inquiry about the state of the sanuitant's health
before the bond was executed.
The Lord Chief Baron said there was no evidence on that
point. One of the witnesses said that nothing whatever was
said about the gentleman's state of health at the meeting
which was attended by the defendant and Mr. E. D.
Broughton, the testator's solicitor, preliminary to the emelt-
don of the bond.
Another Juror asked whose ditty it was to make the is-
quiay ?
The Lord Chief Baron replied that the rule caveat emptor
applied to a party making a purchase who was bound to take
cue that he was not imposed upon. But the law was, that
if one party to a bargain knew facts which materially at.
betted the value of the matter bergained for, and concealed
these facts, such a concealment was evidence of fraud.
Mr. Bramwell (in the absent* of the Attorney.deneral)
thee address. d the jetty for the plaintiff. The case he aid,
was of the utmost importance not only as regarded the
amount of the band, but as it so deeply affected the charac-
ter of the &messed Mr. Broughton. The question was
whether that gentleman had committed a fraud by conceal-
ing his state of health for the purpose of imposing on the
defendant and entrapping him into the purchase of the an-
nuity. It was most extraordinary the defendant bed made
no complaint during the time his uncle lived—not even
when he died or afterwards for two years. until he was
peened for a judgment and the interest, which he could not
pay. The annuity was valued at 1,4611. in cash, and there
was an important difference between suck a payment and
the security of the defendant, who now refused to pay his
bond on the ground that his uncle had been guilty of fraud.
It was most incredible that the defendant did not well
know the state of his uncle's health all through.
Sir J. his Broughton knew it, and that was his reason for re•
fusing to purchase the annuity. How was it possible itcould
have been unkaown to the defendant ? Unless the family
were the meet cur' ordinary in the world, no one could be-
lieve that the defendant alone knew nothing of a circum-
stance which must have been for years notor ous amongst
them. If the testator's state of heath was not known gener-
ally amongst the family, why did not the defendant cal
some of them to orove it? The reason was obvious. Because
no member of the family could prove it. The late Mr.
Broughton had not concealed his state of health fretn the
insurance offices to which he applied to effect insurances on
his life, was it to be believed that be had dishonestly or
fraudulently concealed it from his own near relative ? It
was most improbable and incredible that he should have
fixed upon the defendant, who was most likely to
have known all about him. It was a very
serious charge against the late Mr. Broughton, and
ought to be confirmed, not upon suspicion or surmise, but
by positive evidence, before the J
uly entertained it. The
defendant had made a very good bargain. He purchased
2001. a year, and had undertaken to pay only 601. or 601.,
the interest of the bond, which he now repudiated altogether.
The Lord Chief Baron recapitulated the facts, and laid
down the law applicable to the case. There were various
instances in which contracts bad been vitiated where there
was a suppression of truth, even though no misrepreeentation
had been made. For instance, where the vendor
of a house, being conscious of a material defect in
the main wall, plastered it over to conceal the de-
fect from the purchaser, who afterwards discovered it,
it was held to be such a fraudulent concealment as
entitled the purchaser to recover the purchase money back.
If the jury believed this bond was executed in consequence
of the &curd Mr. Broughton concealing the fact that he
was at the time labouring under a mortal complaint, the
bargain could not stand. The testator possessed that infor-
mation, and as it was not disclosed U. the defendant, the
whole transaction was void. If the defendant did not
know of thou facts when be executed the bond, his subse-
quent payment of interest or his reluctance to avoid the
transaction would not deprive him of his right to set up the
present defence. The question was not what the defendant
had done since, but whether a fraud had been committed
when the bond was executed. The jury should
consider whether there was any suppression in
May, 1846, upon the part of the testator or his
soilictor, of any facts known to them and not known
to the defendant, who ought to have been apprised of them
before the bargain was completed. It was in evidence the
defendant had never seen his uncle. If he had, why was
not Mr. Edward Delves Broughton, the solicitor who ma-
naged the whole business, put into the box by the plaintiff ?
He could have explained the whole transaction, but although
he had actually appeared in court on Saturday to produce
Mme papers the plaintiff had not called him. It certainly
• . •

As not for the defenhint to do so, because the gentlema,
was a party to the transaction which was now impeached.
It was the plaintirs duty to call the man who negotiated the
whole matter, who was also a near relative of both the
parties to it, and who could have said distinctly whether the
defendant did know of his uncle's state of health in May,
1845. The jury should judge for themselves under all the
circumstances. If they beliterd the anat gement was a
fair bond lids one the plaintiff was entitled to recover ; but,
if the testator's state of hea:th was so alarming and dan-
gerous that it ought to have been communicated to the
defendant, and that it was not communicated to him, then
their verdict ought -o be for the defendant.
The jury, after deliberating for a few minutes, returned a
verdict for the defendant.