The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-18 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 18, 1853

He never called upon Mr. Jameld to pa y this demand until
two years aad • half nearly after he had cooed to be •
customer of his, and had finally settled his account,
and then this charge was trumped up against
him, there being in the letter an intimation
about the exposure of repudiation by so well-knows
and public • character as Mr. Jerrold. But, rather than
submit to this Mr. Jerrold had chosen to undergo the
annoyance and Sao trouble of defending the action, and to
Ilee dragged before the public. He would positively contra.
' diet the plaintiff. The jury would find that his evidesc•
would be corroborated by all the internal evidence of the
case, by dates and by documents, and he (Mr. Hawkins)
bad no doubt they would come to the conclusion that no
I case had been substantiated against his client.
Mr. Jerrold was then examined. He deposed that in
December, 1849, Mr. Mayhew, • relative of his, asked hint
for an introduction to his tailor, and he gave him the note
produced. He had an interview with the plaintiff after-
wards, but bow soon he could not tell. It was within a
few days. Andrews said he found that Mr. Maybes, had
been a bankrupt, and asked how he was to get his money if
he trusted him. He told plaintiff that at that time Mr.
Mayhew had • good engagement, and that he would basafe
to treat him to the extent of 10f. That was the pith of
what took place. He said that Mr. Mayhew was reckless I
and extravagant, and witness replied that then he had •
good position on the Moe rang Chronick, which he had in
point of fact. He would positively swear that he never
gave the plaintiff to understand in the least degree that he
would become responsible for the good. supplied to Mr.
Mayhew. He recoUected nothing whatever of any centres.•
titles about • guarantee; he n said anythiog about
there being no need of writing if be (Mr. Jerrold) gave
the order, and in no way or respect did he give the order.
lie did not show him the list of articles ordered. Had he
done se be should have said they were extravagant and use-
less. Mr. Mayhew told him simply that he wanted a suit
of clothes. In no care, at no time, and under no cireum.
stances, did he order Andrews to supply the article.. Ile
knew his own position with regard to Mayhew. Me was
paying large debts for him, and of course he should not
have taken fresh liabilities of his upon himself. He was
asked to pay the bill until after he hail discontinued
to deal with Mr. Andrews. The plaintiff was continually
soliciting his custom. He told him that his charges were
too high, and after this he was asked for this money. He
had paid hundreds for Mayhew, or he might have paid
this when asked. He told Andrews to sue Mayhew when
he was in the Queen's Prison. Had he done so be would
have been paid. He paid those which were against him
then. In the account of 801.8 e., there were charges for
clothes for hie two sons, one of age, the other under age.
He was fifty years of age, and Mayhew was eight years
younger. Mr. Mayhew was certainly not a "chicken,"
rather the contrary. (A lough.) When he settled his
account, no mention was made at all of his being liable to
this demand. Mrs. Jerrold had been subpcunaed by the
I plaintiff. She was in attendance, hut not called.
In crass-examination Mr. Jerrold said Mr. Mayhew, un-
fortunately, was his son-in-law,—be married his daughter.
It was about ten years since the marriage took place. Mr.
Maybeves embarrassments were very great—but there was
an interval of great prosperity. Mr. Mayhew was bankrupt
in the railway time, and was out of the way for thtee years,
his certificate being withheld. lle had never takes the
benefit of the act that witness was aware of.
Ile had been in prison before he was married to witness's
daughter. Witness bad not seen :him for three year*.
In December last he was arrested, and remained in prison
sight months. He had • good opening of his prospects, he
bad a very good salary, and was doing • great deal of pub-
lie ;rood in the Morning Chronicle in connexion with the
articles on "London Labour and the London Pour." May-
hew was extravagant when he had money, and also when
he had not. Men generally were extravagant when they
hod no money. 'When he asked for the letter to witness's
tailor he did not say that he could not get credit, but should
conclude that he could not. All he told Andrews was that
he thought he would be safe in trusting Mr. Mayhew to the
extent of 10!.
Mr. Stammers replied, contending that the plaintiff's
case was made out.

monies in the hands of trustee., emouatiag to 25,000 i., with
the payment of 3,1001., and interest 4551., making the sum
doe, 3,5551. Another secured creditor was " Mr. Hobert
Keeley, comedian, of Brampton-square, for 1,6851. 105.,"
Mr. Keeley holding as seea►it, the lease of • piece of
greoed at Putney, valued at 1,901/. Mr. Keeley is also •
creditor, unsecured, for 2001, on a bill of exchange at three
month., drawn by the bankrupt and accepted by the Duke
of Buckingham. la the list of good debtor* appear* the
name of " Major Beresford, Carlton Club," for • balance
of 5001., due as per bill of cents. The bankrupt states that
he has brought en action fur this •mount, which settee is
new pending. " The Cathie Club Association" is also
debited fur 1051., for professional services; "ditto, Lord
bleidstoait's election. fur professional service+, 105/."
" West Surrey election, fir professional services, 521. 10e. ;"
" Duke of Buckingham, 2,8001."
In • statement of his affairs on the let January, 1862,
the bankrupt valued his interest in the Era newspaper at
5001. It appeared that that was the sum winch he had paid
fur it in lbiB, but that, in February last, he had sold
it fur 2,2501. From an explanatory note appended to the
balahee sheet, it apneared that be had filed a bill in Chan-
cery against Mr. Ledger, formerly connected with the
paper, and that he estimated the amount to be recovered
from him at fully 1,0001.
Mr. Lawrence, for the bankrupt, asked that he she'll
pass, .he at:coasts he had filed, though not strictly satiate&
Nay , being the best that he could render. As • solicitor
ha had been careless in hie bock-keeping, and of many of
hie transactions there were no entries. Certain requisitions
had been tendered by the assignees, for the purpose of ob-
taining explanations, which bad been given by Mr. Strutt.
Mr. Sympoo, for the assignee., concurred in thinking
that the accounts were the best which the bankrupt could
reader, and stated that all questions as to conduct and as to
hook-keeping would be reserved till the certificate meeting.
Mr. Pringle tendered a proof, on behalf of Messrs. Luca.,
builder's, of Belvidere-road, Lambeth, for 1,1001. Their
debt arose out of the erection of a house for the bankrupt
at I'utney; and they now oppoeed, on the ground that the
bankrupt was in embarrassed circumstances at the time the
order was given for the erection of the house, that he had
raised money on mortgage of the house, and bad applied it
to other purposes instead of paying Messrs. Lucas's debt.
They also required to know how he had applied the pe-
ntode of the Era newspaper, which he had sold for 2,2301.
The bankrupt was examined, and denied that he wee kr
solvent when Sieves. Lucaa's debt was contracted, insisting
that he had then • surplus of 7,0001. lie had paid Mean.'
Lucas upwards of 5001. in reduction of their account, sal
had offered them security on the Era newspaper foe
the residue, which their solicitor had declined to
accept. The proceeds of the sale of the As
he had applied, to the extent of 1,4001., la
paying Helen. Spalding and Hodge, to whom he owed
1,4001. for paper supplied, and 3001. to Messrs. Lucas, in
further liquidation of their demand. The debt duo from
the Duke of Buckingham was good, and would be paid.
(The bankrupt produced a letter from his grace admitting
the debt) A fund bad been set apart by thoae who were
administering his pace's estate, out of which this and other
debts would be paid. Amongst the good debts due to him
was one from Mr. Charles Mathews, which had been re-
duced from 9001. to 3001. since January, 1352, by a charge
upon the takings at the Lyceum Theatre.
His Honour said he should allow the bankrupt to pus,
but in the interval betwetn that and the certificate meeting
he must furnish to the opposing creditors an account of the
money borrowed on mortgage of the hones built by Meese.
Lucas at Putney, and of the appropriation of that money.
Thin certificate meeting was fixed for the 15th December.

SHERIFFS COURT.-YESTERDAT.
alma JAMS' lIVICIIILL, IN, IMINI4OROUTOIF MIDD

JUIDREWS V. JWOLD.

This was an action brought by Mr. Andrews, a tailor, in
Cork•street, to recover of Mr. Douglas Jerrold the sum of
191. 65., being the price of two suits of clothes supplied to
hie son-in-lsw, Mr. Henry Mayhew.

- -
The plaintiff deposed that in the month of December,
1849, he received from Mr. Douglas Jerrold, who had been
a customer of his some time, a cote, introducing to him as
a customer, Mr. Henry Mayhew. The note (produced)
stated that Mr. Mayhew was desirous of giving him en
order. He inquired into Mr. Maybew's circumstances, as to
his means of payment, in consequence of which he deter-
mined not to give him credit; and he waited on Mr.
Jerrold at his house at Putney, and told him that as Mr.
Mayhew bad either be. n a bankrupt, or had taken the
benefit of the Ins.lvent Act, and bad been living in a style
of reckless extravagance and improvidence, he could
not trust him. He asked Mr. Jerrold if it was
not the same Mr. Mayhew as had been living at
Fulham, to which an affirmative answer was given, sad
then witness gave the name of the person who bail disclosed
to him information relative to Mr. Mayhew in pecuniary
matters. Mr. Jerrold said he always intended to be re-
sponsible himself to witness, who then told him that any
undertaking of that sort must be in writing, as he had lost
501. by the person who introduced Mr. Jerrold to him,
through takir.g a verbal instead of a written guarantee, as
required by the Statute of Frauds. He told Mr. Jerrold
that if he made the clothes for Mayhew, the order must be
is writing. Mr. Jerrold replied that a man mast be a
contemptible fellow whose word was not as good as his
written promise, and one of them made the remark that in
some cases the Statute of Frauds was made to again in
fraud. Mr. Jerrold asked biro what clothes Mr. Mayhew
required, and he enumerated them according to the order,
and exactly as the account for them wu made out.
He said they were more than he thought May-
hew required, but told him to make them, and
no more. He told him that if he ordered the clothes
for Mayhew there need be no writing. Mr. Jerrold or-
dered them, but it was understood that the account was to
be entered specially in the books, and not mind up with Mr.
Jerrold's own private account. (The books were here pro-
duced, and a discussion took place as to whether the entry
could be received as evidence. It was excluded.) Witness
was requested to do all he could te get Mr. Mayhew to pay
the amount. Accordingly he did so, and made many appli-
cations to him, including two or three while he was in the
Queen's Prison, without success. Mr. Jerrold told witness
to sue Mayhew, and he would get his money, as he had
received a large sum from the Crystal Palace Company.
Ho did not do so. At Christmas, 1850, he sent his account
in to Mr. Jerrold. That was his own account, and did not
allude to the goods 'applied to Mr. Mayhew, because it was
understood to be a separate account. The clothes were
made and delivered to Mr. Mayhew, in Dean-street, Bar-
ton-crescent. (A letter from witness to the defendant was
called for and read.) It contained in substance the evidence
the plaintiff had given as to the giving of the order
by Mr. Jerold penonelly ; and referring to an
interview, when Mr. Jerrold emphatically said he
"owed him nothing," and that " that was good Saxon."
The articles made were a dress coat, • frock coat, two
waistcoats, and two pairs of trowsers. They were charged
191. es., the same prices as Mr. Jerrold himself paid. When
Mr. Jerrold told him he should get his money if he sued
Mayhew, he replied that he could not sue him.
Cross-examined—You heard that Mayhew was insolvent
or bankrupt, do you think these fit things and charges for •
man in that position ?
Witness—You would think so if you had heard what Mr.
Jerrold said of him. My last account with Mr. Jerrold was
four years in being settled.
The Under-Sheriff reprimanded the witness for 'ohm-
testing a statement which had nothing whatever to do with
the issue.

The learned L nder Sheriff summed up in his usual clear
manner. H. observed that it certainly was remarkable
that the plaintiff, who appeared to be well up in the law Lf
guarantee, should not after his former experience have
pressed for a written undertaking, and why was not some
mention nude of the debt in the amounts between the
plaintiff and Mr. Jerrold. The jury had • painful and
difficult task to perform to say which side was most
entitled to credit, and that was a question which fell en-
tirely within the province of •jtiry.
After a few minutes' deliberation, the jury returned a
verdict for the defendant.

Cross-examination continued—No one was present when
the conversation he had deposed to took place. It was in
Mr. Jerrold's private study. He told him that Mr. May-
hew was wittieg for the Afonsinq Chronicle. He did not
hear until afterwards that he was writing " London
Labour and the London Poor." Mr. Jerrold told him
that Mayhew was in a condition to pay. Mr. Jerrold
did not owe him a farthing now, but be was
four yean paying his last bill. The amount was
801. ss. Interest was charged upon it while it
remained unpaid. Never lost a farthing by Mr. Jerrold
He bad had several conversations with him in the streets on
this subject. He could not say when, but he might have
met him about a dusen times a year. He could not say that
within six months alter the clothes were supplied he cam-
' municated to Mr. Jerrold that he could not get the money
from Mayhew, but be certainly must have told him if he
saw him in that time. Did not send the account for the
clothes to Mr. Jerrold till September, 1833. He did not
write because he so frequently saw him. Had sent the ac-
count Diversl times to Mayhew. Mr. Jerrold told him that
Mayhew would pay when some Chancery affair came to a
settlement. Of Mr. Jerrold's own account of 801., 371. was
incurred in 1850, and the whole amount was paid in August,
1831. Mr. Jerrold told him at their last interview he owed
him nothing, and said that was good Saxon, and that was
the reason he alluded to bad English in his letter. He
son dallied that his charges were extravagant, but after the
settlement in August, 1831, he said wituess was too dear for
him, and ceased his custom. The date of the note of intro-
duction was 17th Dec., 1849.
- .

Evidence was given'of the delivery of the goods, and that
considering Mr. Andrews' business, that of a West-end
tailor, the prices were fair and reasonable.
Mr. Hawkins, addressing the jary, said he did not dis-
pute that tres charges were such as a West-end tailor should
1 charge—that was not the question in the case—the point fur
' the decision of the jury being, did Mr. Jerroltl, for whom
be had the honour to appear, ever mate himself respon-
sible to the plaintiff for these clothes. He commented on
the manner in which the plaintiff had given his evidence,
which he said was off-hand and flippant, and asked the jot
to pause eve they took all be had said for granted, inasmuch
as he would be completely contrac.icted by Mr. Jerrold,
whose character as a man of honour ant veracity could not
be impeached. If Mr. Jerrold had given his word that he
would pay for these clothes, or Sad he ordered them, he
would have paid the money without a murmur of course ;
hut the plaintiff had wrongly stated what took place, and
had placed before the jury • distorted view of the whole
matter. Ile charged the ptaintiff with importing the asser-
tion about the four years amount into the case for the
express purpose of prejudicing the jury against
the defendant, who paid his debts honourably,
and who, in August, 1811,:settled the plaintiff's account,
paying him interest tit.xtu it, and setuslly 371. of that bill
wee incurred only the year before, while the plaintiff would
now teed the jury to inter that the whole had been owing
four ye: rs. Did the note of introduction imply that Mr.
Jerrold intended to hold himself responsible, when its terms
were these : " Sir,-1 have much pleasure in introducing
to you Mr. Henry Mayhew, • relative of mine, who is
desirous of giving you an otd r—l am, ofte.—Dotionas
JERROLD. I shall call upon you in the course of the week."
these last words referring to as order which Andrews then
had in hand fur Mr. Jerrold. The sole object of the first
interview after Mayhew gave the order was, that Andrews
should satisfy himself as to the means of Mayhew, wko at
that time had • handsome engagement on the Morning
Chronicle; so that it was not likely that Mr. Jerrold would
take upon himself the liability he incurred to his tailor.