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

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 4, 1849.

get it. He said, "De you think we could do a bit of
staff ?":I said I will try, and I will pet my name to a bill. I
drew the bill, and he accepted it. Us wanted some of the
money to settle some of his again, and sons* turf transactions.
tie wished me to get it disoounted. I went to e oust par-
tial and they would not touch it. I knew MI on. I Men-
tioned to him that I wanted some money. He said he could
get money to any amount. I gave him the bill to get it
diesounted, and when ha got the money to bring it to me and
I would pay him for doing so. He took the bill with him.
He never brought me any money, although I asked him re.
y either to give the bill back or give me the money.
rear lit in his possession after it suedes. It was torn to pieces
sod dirty.
Croseexamined—l don't know that I bays great esmosi-
dons. lam • memoir of the Marquis of Donegal's family.
I have no property, only what my father allows me. When
the bill was accepted I was in need of money. I had
soy bill transaction with Mr. Howard before. I understood
the term " bit of stuff." It is a cant term among gentlemen
about town. I know Milton is a horsedeakr, and that he
stole this bill from me. I have had similar transactions with
him. I got the bills back, but I nevi r got any money from
him. The time I lass saw the bill was atter the 2nd August.
I saw it at the bar of the White Bear. I asked for it
then. He took it out and held it out before me, sad showed
as my writing and Mr. Howard's. I know Mr. Howard
was in NVoroester Gaol. I told Milton that, and he said
"Now I'll see about getting that bill paid." This was
some months ago. I only beard be was in the Queen's
Prison the day a:efore yesterday. I have been in the Queen's
Prison, and knew Howard there. He gave me the bill for
the purpose of being discounted. I was anxious to get it
discounted. Milton said he would get the money for me.
He said he could get it from a man in Chancery-lane. Every
time I saw him he made an excuse about the money. On
one occadoss be told me be had pawned the bill for 101., and
asked mew give hiss that 1111111 to get it back.
Henry Theodore James—l have been an attorney's clerk.
I know the plaintiff. I have known him 20 years. He was
a stationer in Fure-street, Cripplegate, when I first knew
him. He was there some time. lie left Fore-street about
15 years ago, in consequence of having had money left to
his wife, and he gave up business. He went into Wales.
I did not see him in London for some years. When I next
saw him he had again married a lady of property,
and was living at Earl's terrace, Brompton, end
curled on the business of discounting bills at 33,
Bucklenbury. He also sold wine and watches to persons
he discounted for, paying them part in watches and part in
money. I know Willies Carter Gatos. He is an attori ey.
About July last year Lloyd asked me to recommend him an
attorney in whose name he could bring actions. Ho said he
had a large law businass, end he wished for some attorney
to wham he could pay • weekl stipend for the use of has
name,aed if I got some one I should have • part of the busi-
ness. I was introluced to Mr. W. Carter Gates, and an ar-
rangement was made that Gates was to have 11. per week for
the use of his name, and 121. to pay for his certificate—
that arrangement continued from July 1848 to May 1849.
Some things were done in law proceedings ; some in this
court. I have seen this bill before; I saw it in Sept. last
year, in Mr. Lloyd's band. He said he had advanced 501. to
Milton on this bill and two others, of the amount of 5001. and
1501. respectively. He said Milton had lei, them with him
to be discounted, and he also left an I 0 U for the 501. ad-
vanced. I did not see any maul pass for the 1 0 U. He
told me to take cue of the 1 0 U and the bills. I issued a
writ on this bill in the Common Pleas. The attorney was
either Mr. Gates or Mr. Turner— a person he had entered
into an arrangement with after Gates left.
Cron-examined—l was a year with Lloyd. I was his
confidential clerk. He trusted me with all his transactions.
I had no difference with him, except that he did not pay me.
I have got a judgment against hint for 151. odd for salary. I
had a discussion with him, and threatened to do hint all the
mischief I could by disclosing his transactions if he did not
pay me. I have no unfriendly feeling to him except to get
my owe. I have not changed my mind as to doing him all
the mischief I could. I acted as his clerk during his ne-
forking doings to get my living. I knew they were Delirious,
but I stayed till I could get something better.
Mr. Jenkins was called to produce the schedule of Milton
in the Insolvent Court. It was objected that it could not
be received, and rejected.
This was the defendant's Mee.
John Parry was called by Mr. Serjeant Slue in reply—l
ma clerk to Mr. Lloyd. Hs is a man of property. Pert
of his money Is the property of his wife. He
is in the habit of lending money. Frequently takes
bills from gentlemen with expectations. I remember
his having this bill in the latter end of June last year. It
we. in my drawer when it became due in August. It u-
nwise& there till April this year, when I gave it out to get
a writ leaned. I presented it when due at a banking-house,
la St. Paul's Churchyard, Messrs. Paged, Bainbridge, and
Co. The answer was there wee no account there in the
same of that gentleman. The banker's clerk at my request
wrote the words "No account " on the bill. Milton owed
, a large sum to Mr. Lloyd. He left this bill with others.
I Croseezamined.—Milton had 120/ and 401. in June, and
601. on 6th July. I saw money on 6th July lying on the
table. I beard Milton say, " That will do for the present."
This took plea in the private office. I saw what passed
casually.
Be-examined—The handwriting of the document shown to
me is Milton's hand. A receipt ior 1201. on account of three
bills was tendered and objected to as requiring a stamp. It
was received suhjict to the objection.
Mr. Keane replied on the additional evidence, contending
that Milton should have beencalled to prove this transaction.
and not Parry. The receipt might have referred to any
other bills.
Mr. Serjeant Shoe replied on the whole case.
After the learned judge had carefully summed up the Me,
The jury d a verdict for the defendant, their find-
ing being that the plaintiff gave no value for the bill, and
took it atter it became due.
The verdict was entered on the issues that Chiche4ter en-
dorsed in violation of the special purpose, and that Milton
did not endorse for value.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YarreRDAY.
thu Palm—Biro= Si. V. PoLuxu, C.D., .me Wuriwurria
BrEcut. Alms.
BLARE (EXECUTOR) V. BROVOTITON.—ACTION 01.014 •
BOND.—ALLEQZD FRAUD.

The Attorney.O. nerd and Mr. Bramwell were clan.
for the plaintiff ; Sr F. Theaiger, Q C., and Mr. Word,
worth represented the defend-et.
This cue was part heard on Saturday. It was an action
on a bond conditioned for the payment of 1,4611. The de-
claration stated that the bond was executed by the defendant
in May, 1845, and the plea alleged that it was obtained by
fraud and covin, upon which issue was joined. The execu-
tion of the bond having been admitted, the defendant's
counsel opered the case, as the onus of proving the
affirmative of the issue was upon him. It ap-
peared the late Mr. Thomas Delves Broughton, who
was son of the late Air Thomas Broughton, grandfather
of the defendant, porsessed an annuity of 2001. Having b: en
desirous to mike a provision for a lady with whom he had
cihabited, he was anxious to sell his lite interest. Ho era-
pined his nephew, Mr. Edward Delves Brouckton, a soli.
eitor, to communicate upon the !subject with Mr. Henry
Delves Broughton, the defendant, who was to have been re-
sponsible for the payment of the annuity on the death of his
father. For the purpose of fixing the price of the annuity,
Mr. Edmunds, the actuary of the Legal and General Life
Insurance Company, was consulted, and the only facts stated
to him was the age of the annuitant. 68, and the amount of
the annuity. Mr.Edmunds estimated its value at seven years'
purchase. Aft.r some consultation, the de:endant agreed to
become the purchaser, end the bond in question was given,
for 1,4611.. which included half a year's annuity and interest
on the principal for half a year. The testator died early in
1840, and the defendant'. father, Sir John Delves Brough-
ton (six months after whose death the bend was payable).
died in August, 180. It was now stated that
the defendant was quite ccntented to abide by the arrange-
ment he bad e-,tered into, and paid the interest of the bond
Tap to May, 1848. But n having seen the testator,
although he was his uncle, he bad reason to believe he bed
been uncandidly dealt with in the traumatic'. He dis-
covered that his uncle had been in an alarming end danger-
ous state of health (or some considerable time previous to the
sale of the annuity, and that several of the insurance offices
in London had refused to insure his life; that before 1845,
and up to the date of the bond, his life was in imminent
danger from a disease of long sanding. Upon these around.
the defendant resisted the payment of the bond. He alleged
that the state of his uncle's health had been fraudulently
concealed from him, and that be had been entrapped by
misrepresentations into the purchase of the annuity, which
at the time was perfectly worthless. He was willing to pay
the bond at the time specified if the transaction had been
bona fide, but. under those creamstances, he conceived he
was absolved from all liability in respect of it.
The assignment of the annuity reciting the bond having
bus admitted,
Mr. H. G. Robinson, a solicitor, proved the facts relating
to the sale of the annuity as stated. The defendant said, at
one of the meetings to negotiate the sale of the annuity, he
had sever seen his uncle. When the preliminary arrange-
ment. were being made. it was said the late Mr. Broughton
was 68 years of age. Nothing was said about his health.
Yr. Edmunds's volution was the beide of the bond.
Mr. Edmunds said he remembered having been called on
to value the lowest of a gentleman of 68 years of age in
annuity of 2001. He was of opinion that "sun years' pur-
chase wan very fair, assuming it to be a healthy life.
Mr. Roots, a surgeon, at Kingston, in Surrey, deposed
that ha had been la attendance on the testator from
September, 1843, to January, 1845. From Assist, 1844, he
bad visited him daily. He was affected by a dangerous
disease of the bladder a 'el prostate plea. It be-
anie very dangerous in December, 1844, and cos-
dosed so up to January. 1845. At that time the
nature of the disease was such that it was most probable it
would terminate his 'tiptoes. in a few months. Some of
the deceased's family knew the state in which he was.
Mr. Anthony Stafford, of Old Burliestas-attest, sawn,
said he had been in consultation widish' last whams ae to
the testator's health. On the 20th of January, 1845, he was
In great danger. He had Influential** of the bladder. In
May, 1845, his life was not insurable. He might have had
his Came five or ten yeah.
The cause was then adjourned and resumed yesterday
morning, when
Mrs. Caroline Broughton was called—She said she had
known the testator, and had resided with him for many yeah.
He was affected by • painful disease up to the period of his
death. He was desirous to fell his annuity of 2001., but he
frequently said he could sot do so in consequence of the
state of his health. Witness heard blowy that his wephsw,
the defendant, had never seen him, and that Mr. Edward
Dam Broughton had been negotiating with him foe a sale
of the annuity. The testater said his brother, Sir Joke, fad
refused to parches" it as he knew of his state of heel* but
the defendant knew nothing of it. The deemed walked to
see witness and hi. see at Orchard-street, Partmerwequare,
some months before his death. He then took leave of his
I child. He had previously eased to live with willies.