The Express.
London, England, 1867-06-22 00:00:00

',J

iiii: i

tam intelitstna.

COURT OF QUILT/CS BENCH. —.lvNs 21.
After Tenn Nisi Prins sittings at Westminster.—(Before
the Lard Obis( Justice and a Special Jury.)
. _ BOTCH V. HALL. _

In this ease, partly reported in yesterday's Express, the
jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-lows 21.

Sqttiagb at Nihi Priva.—(Before the Lord Chief Baron and
a Special Jury.)
BLAKELY V. NICHOLAY.

This was an action for goods sold and delivered. The
circumstances were of a very peculiar nature.
Mr. Hance and Mr. Marshall were counsel for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. L. Smith counsel for
the defendants. _ .

-1117.14ance,in opening the case, said the plaintiff was
Captain Blakely, formerly an officer of the Royal Artil-
lery, and the defendants were Messrs. Nichol), the well-
known furriers in Oxford-street. Captain lakely had
heed with his wife in a very handsome house in Park-lane,
but some time ago unhappy differences arose between
them, which resulted in his leaving home. On returning
to the house he found that Mrs. Blakely end her uncle,
Mr. Luke, had removed • large quantity of propetty, in-
cluding a sable trimmed cloak, which he purchased in
Russia for his wife for 400 guineas. Having heard that
the cloak was in the possession of the defendants, he
went to their shop on the 14th December last, and saw
the article, which he was informed bad been entrusted to
them by Mrs. Blakely for sale, a sum of 200 guineas
being the price that was to be asked. He told
Mr. Nicholay, senior, that Mrs. Blakely had no authority
to dispose of it, and that he was not to give it up to any
one except by his direction. Subsequently he sent • com-
missionaire with a note to the defendants, asking them to
give the cloak to him, or to leave it with the ball porter of
the Army and Navy Club, or at his mother's, in Chester-
field-street. Ultimately he received • reply from the de-
fendants, stating that they had purchased it from Mr.
Luke, of Inverness-terrace, who would give any infor-
mation to Captain Blakely with regard to the transaction.
The end of the affair was that the plaintiff agreed to sell
the cloak to the defendants for 2101. in cash, subject to
the deduction of about 101. which Mrs. Blakely owed
them ; but he could not get the money or the property,
and was compelled to bring this action. In defiance of the
plaintiff, the defendants had returned the cloak to
Mr.. Blakely.
Theophilus Alexander Blakely, the plaintiff, was then
examined in proof of the above facts. He said he was
formerly a member of the Blakely Ordnance Company
(Limited), which became embarrassed. There was another
company, called the Blakely Ordnance Company. Had
resided with his wife at No. 1, Park-lane. Some unfor-
tunate differences arose between him and his wife ;
they were entirely his own fault. Mrs. Blakely
enjoyed a jointure of 5001. • year, which was entirely her
own. He purchased the cloak for her four years ago. She
had no authority to part with it. He discovered that pro-
perty woith thousands of pounds had been removed from
the house in Park-lane. When be went there after Mrs.
Blakely and Mr. Luke had left, he found the house
almost bare. That was in June last year. The c'osk was
one of the articles taken away. On the 14th December
he called at Mr. Nicholay's shop and said he wished to see
a fur-trimmed cloak which had been advertised. They
produced the cloak, which be identified as his own pro-
perty. The witness then detailed what passed between
him and Mr. Nicholey, both orally and by letter, and said
that Mr. Nichol y promised to give him 210/. for the cloak,
and send him a cheque for the amount at Christmas. He
did not know what had become of the cloak, but he had
heard that it was in his wife's pospeosion.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hnddleston—l havebeenniarried
eleven years to my wife. She is the niece of Mr. Luke.
Her jointure of 5001. • year was brought into the common
stock. . . _

I believe you deserted your wife, and ran away with Lady
Forth, now Mrs. Daring!
The Lord Chief Baron—la it necessary to go into this
subject!
Mr. Huddleston—Yes, my lord ; although no doubt it is
a most unfortunate matter. _ .

Have you deserted your wife and run away with another
lady?—Yes.
Before you did that did you make any provision for
your wife you
lets her all the money that was settled upon
her. I had nothing to make a provision for her with.
She had worn the cloak two or three years. I have not
lived with my wife since.
As soon as she learnt you had gone to live with another
person she left Park-lane, took her things with her, and
went to her uncle !—She took the things.
' Did you go back to Park-lane!—Yes.
Did you take the lady with you ?—I did.
The lady you ran away with you took to the house pre-
viously occupied by your wife!—The witness made no
answer.

Is she living with you there now ?—No.
There are proceedings in the adjoining court (Divorce
Court) !—Yes.
You have been living with the lady ever since!—That
will be proved probably to-day.
The Lord Chief Baron—One court at a time is enough.
Mr. Hudilleston (to witness)—Was the advertisement
the maxi you went to Mr. Nicholey's ?—I merely made
that an excuse for putting • stop to the sale. This was
only one of • great number of cases.
Did you may you wished to purchase the cloak for your
wife, as an agreeable surprise !—Very likely.
Whom did you mean by your wife ?—My wife.
Which ?—The legitimate wife.
Did you intend to give the cloak to her!—Yes.
As an agreeable surprise !—I meant it for • very dis-
agreeable surprise to her.
Re-examined—Since the separation my wife has had the
fall enjoyment of the 5001. a-year. I have been sued at
her request for different debts she has contracted.
After the examination of the plaintiff's attorney the
letters were put in and read.
Mr. Huddleston, on the part of the defendants, sub-
mitted that the plaintiff had not made out his ease, be-
cause the ration was for goods sold and delivered, and it
had not been proved that the goods bad been sold.
Mr. Hence said if necessary he would apply to his lord-
ship for leave to add a count for the conversion of the
Proirtlit; ddleston said that Mr. Nicholay, having been
informed of the painful position in which Mrs. Blakely
was placed, consented to try to dispose of the cloak for
her, and refused her offer to allow him commission on the
transaction. He recommended her strongly not to part
with the cloak, but said that if by the end of the season
she could not dispose of it, and she was then in want of
money, he would buy it for 150 f. When Mrs. Blakely
was deserted by her husband she naturally took away all
the articles of wearing apparel he had given to her, and
under the circumstances which had been disclosed it was
unjust and dishonourable to attempt to make Mr. Nicholay
responsible for the cloak which he bad returned.
Mr. John A. Nicholay, the elder defendant, was exa-
mined at some length. According to a practice observed
with regard to many of his customers be took care of the
cloak during the summer of 186 G, and in October of that
year Mrs. Blakely said she wished to advertise it for sale,
and asked if be would allow it to be exhibited in his show.
That was against his practice, hat sympathising with the
lady in her trouble he said he would give directions to his
servants to afford every facility for the sale of the cloak.
He declined to accept commission. Several noblemen and
ladies of high rank came is see it, but a sale was not
effected. He advised her to accept 200 f., and said that if
at the end of the season she was still in want of funds, and
it was not sold, he would give 1501. for it, though
he did not actually want the article. He never
told the plaintiff that he had purchased the
cloak himself, nor that he would buy it from him
fur 2101. and give him a cheque at Christmas. The letter
saying that he had purchased it from Mr. Luke was
written by his clerk without his knowledge, and it did not
state the fact. He told the plaintiff that he thought Mrs.
Blakely was a high-minded, honourable woman, who had
been shamefully used, that he would not call upon him
to pay the 101. which she owed, and that he would trust to
her for payment for anything she might require. When asked
if he had received from the plaintiff before he called •
letter in which he insinuated that he had been tricky with
regard to the cloak, the witness declared that he had not,
and that if the plaintiff had accused him of being tricky.
he would have kicked him out of the shop. The plaintiff
maid he was not to part with the cloak without his
authority.
Mr. Huddleston then called Mrs. Blakely, whose ap-
pearance in the witness box excited considerable interest.
The Lord Chief Baron appealed to the learned counsel
to consider whether the lady should not be spared examine-
tion..

A long discussion then took place between the Lord
Chief Baron and the learned counsel, in the course of
which his lordship declined in a case of this kind to amend
the declaration, and suggested that the opinion of the jury
might he taken without any further evidence being given.
He also observed that, looking to the circumstances, he
did not think he ought to render any assistance to the
plaintiff in maint►ining an action against Mr. Nicholay.
Mr. Hance reminded his lordship that Mr. Nicholay bad
admitted that Captain Blakely had told him not to part
with the cloak. _ _

lir.l7lVialesion said be called Mrs. Blakely to prove
that there had been no gale of the cloak.

: we think there
warn no sale.

The Lord Baron—lf that is your opinion there is
an end of the cue, and the defendants are entitled to the
verdict. _ _ _

A verdict was then entered for the defendants, and
Hrs. Blakely, who had only given her name, after having
been sworn, left the box.