The Express.
London, England, 1868-05-27 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE-aHIS DAY.

EQUITY COURT.
(Beforo Vice-Chancellor Sir G. M. Giffaisi.)
ATTORNET-GCNERAL L. IDWUNDS.

Lis case was resumed to-nay.
'1 he information is filed by the Attorney-General en
behalf of the Crown, against Leonard Edmunds, praying t
ft.:- an account of all fees and moneys received by hhs or
sic his behalf as clerk of the patents, and as clerk of the
commissioners of patents. It also prays for a declaration
that in tak.ug the acoomt the defendant ought to account
for all profits made by the purahase and re-sale of chimps,
Lid that he was not entitled to make any deduction
in respect of the parchment used in the prepara-
tion of any document issued by him as clerk
of the patents, or from the office of patents.
By an act passed In the year 18M (2 and 3 W. 4, cap. Ill)
the office of clerk of the patents was abolished, on and
from the 2.)th of August, 1b33 ; and by another act passed
is the same year the clerk of the patents was authorised
to receive " for the use and on account of the Lord Chan-
cellor," the fees which had been accustomed to be paid to
Liss. By a statute passed in 18:;:3 (3 and 4W. 4, c. 84) it
was enacted that from and after the 20th of August,
1833, there should be paid to the clerk of the
patents the yearly sum of 400/., and it wee de-
clared that the said salary should be taken "in
full satisfaction for the duties of your ottice, and of all ex-
penses incident to the performance thereof." It was also
provided that the customary fees payable to the officer, or
to any deputy or clerk m respect of such office, might be
received by the person who should perform the duties of
the cape of clerk of the patents, and should be accounted
for onoe in every three months, and verified on oath.
On the 29th of August, IttAt, Mr. Edmunds, who
was then purse-bearer to the Lord Chancellor, and
secretary tai presentations, weeby sign manual are
jointed to the office of clerk of the patents, and
so continued until his resignation in July 1804.
ice information alleged that it was the defendant's
d Ity to have received the customary foes anciently paid
• the clerk of the entente and pay them in quarterly
Tut affidavit—some into the Exchequer, others to the
.ta; _et:int-General of the Court of Chancery • but that
t', I :lemma on account of these fees were insufficient and
In 1834 he commenced the practice of lour-
s from the Stamp-office large quantities of
•;...ems, on which the commissioners of stamps
:....tee him an allowance. These stamps when re-
ed in the office were afterwards paid for in full by the
pet sots requiring letters patent, and these differences Mr.
had retained, and claimed to be entitled to re-
trio, for Lie own use. He also had retained, and claimed
to re entitled to retain, out of the fees received by him as
cl,•ris of the patents, the sum of 12s. 10d. for every skin of
parchment on which any document had been engrossed
oy Liu: as clerk of the patents since the 31st December,
')-44. In 11,12 the Patent Law Amendment Act was
passed. and in the same year Mr. Edmunds was appointed
-oder the statute to be clerk to the commissioners of
of patents, at a salary of tinot. per annum. Mr.
:Aimee& by his answer first of all demurs to the
..risdirtion' and says that the proper court to try the case
:s the Court of Exchequer. He then says that, when he
appointed in 1433, the office of clerk of the patents
u..s performed by deputy, or by a clerk acting for such de-
Mr. Buboes, who continued to act as such clerk, and
whs. actually received the fees. The Exchequer fees and
:hers he paid into a separate account kept by him with
Ce...tts awl Co , called by him "The Patent Office Ac-
..L..0t," however, was considered by and treated
ty him as his own private account. He says
there if no provision in the act for the deli-
.try and audit of the three monthly accounts, and
• defence practically comes to this, that he repeatedly
t-ied to get an audit of these accounts, and failed to do so.
• o. his own convenience he opened the account atCoutts's,
under no obligation to keep a separate, or, indeed,
..ray account. Its existence was unknown to anyone but
I..e.self, and be regarded it in an, other light than
.• own. In some respects it was a private account, yet
• "of the nature of a public account. As to the
naps " ~uestion, he says that his predecessors have
• 'says been in the habit of purchasing the stamps re-
..al by the patentees beforehand, being allowed a die-
-o..nt of 1 per cent. This allowance is made by the Stamp.
.* to the purchaser as a remuneration for his trouble,
..c.c: .also for the risk he undergoes in the conveyance of
Ley through the streets in cash, in the keeping of the
•• oips which are liable to destruction, and in the cense-
:.or. by clerks from patentees. This amount he claims to
• ,tstly and lawfully entitled to. He says that from
-• to 1,14 the discount moneys on stamps were &ppm-
; r.ated be his direction in payment of the expenses of
parchment, and engroesmente. In 18-14 the amount so
.tt.t:.ed dil not suffice to cover the expense of the parch-
ments and engroesments, and for a time he made the pay.
.etts out of his own pocket. Subsequently, however,
•t. kmking into the act of 1833, be found he
•4.1 paid for the coats of the parchment and
•ct sngro.sing of the patents "in his own wrong ;" and
that time be deducted this expense from his pay.
.r.• rite to the Exchequer. After 1849 no discount was
wed on stamps to the amount of 101. and upwards, and
patent stamps ; but when by the act of 15.13
.t...aps on patents were reduced, the question was re-
..•ed, and the demand for stamps being very great, he
(n:. Edmunds) on the 23rd of August, 1853, drew •
sue. ue of :40/. on the " patent office account" (:1301. for
and 130/. for disbursements). He main-
:..AA that he had • right to do this, as the account
w..s his own • but even it had been strictly a
account', it was the same thing to the
I..elic whether the money (considered as public
money) was in the bank, or lying in the shape of
stamps in the office. As to the " parchments " question,
he maintains that the very costly items, consisting
of the *large, for the illuminated or ornamented
paranieuts wheieou the patents were engrossed,
..1.31 the cost of the Oluaniental text band engross.
=cuts, were never treated as expenses " incidental
to the performance of the duties of the office."
He Las Lo doubt the fee was originally as much as a
guinea on each patent, and the officer would always de-
duct it from his payments into the Exchequer. He,
Mu.self, however, paid them out of his own pocket until
when the number of patents increased so greatly that
trier giayidents actually exceeded his salary of 4001. • year.
He has thus, before 1845, over-paid into the Exchequer
if. 10a. He says that, instead of being indebted to
the Crow o, it will be found that he is entitled to receive
;Ipwar.h. of 7,0001. from the Exchequer.
In the course of the opening, it was arranged that the
t er points of principle, namely, the jurisdiction question,
the question of the stamps and that of the 12s. 10th. for
ars hmeitte should be discussed at once, all others being
de:erred till after the taking of the amounts.
The Attorney-General (Sir J. B. Kerslake, Q..(`.), who,
with sir &Palmer, Q.C.,andMr.Wickens, supports thein-
;erination, said that although it appeared from the plead-
,cgs and was notorious that proceedings of a different
..x.d frost the present hadbeen taken against Mr. Edmunds,
ts• h..d not a word to say as to that. All he had to show
• teat Mr. Edmunds was a debtor to the crown. He

.--..... _
th-e. primeeded to read the evidenoe in support.
Mr. I.r. Seymour, 11.1: ' and Mr. Risottos read the
• vrilence in defence, which was directed to three pointer—
'. That Mr. Edmunds's conduct was in conformity with
tLe .sage of public offices, especially this office ; 2. That
ti.- •••....nips were bought, not out of public money ; and
•:. Teat the practice was attended with great pecuniary
born tit to the public.
Toe Attorney-General then commented on the case. He
t the principle upon which Mr. Edmunds had
prtAreded, which was this with a sum of money be
nought a number of stamps in advance; getting an allow-
Anc-. With the payments which be afterwards obtained
it lull fur these stamps from the patentees he bought
ethers, getting an allowance ; and so on. Hut
be was quite silent as to where he got the
original sum of 3501. with which he commenced
buying tire stamps he kept in stock. He maintained that
the accounts At Contts's was in all respects a public
account , and it was in vain to say that the 500 f. cheque
WAS :a temporary loan, for it did not appear the money was
ever returned. As to the 13. 10d., he maintained it was
covered by the salary of 4001. There were no other ex-
penses but these engrosaments, and why should the offioe
lay out so much as 12s. 103. on each of these parchment!
Sir R. Palmer, Q.C., on the same side, quoted two eases
at tie question of jurisdiction, which, /Ai said, was clear.
Mr. Edmunds was in a fiduciary position, and nothing
could be clearer in equity than that a trustee could not
make a profit of his trust. That he was a trustee for the
r. ;him made no difference. He seemed to have been under
the strange hallucination that because be did (what was
pe, teal right) place these moneys to a separate account,
he could deal with them as he pleased. In other words
at 11,` WAS entitled to this reward for his skill in meeting
thy requirements of his office and his risk in being without
9.c,i.1 s,nthority. But before he 'sued this question of
Licated, self-adjusted, self-allowed remuneration for a
• .If.,uquoed risk, he should have sought the Authority
L
Ihe Vice-Chancellor asked whether the case was
in-
dtd to be put on any other ground than in dealing with
Sic moneys.
• t:. Palmer said the theory of the information wag
• • • Sir. Edmunds was liable as having misappropriated
•vy which was public money. As to the " parchments"
• ...stun, if it were the fact that Mr. Edmund's
• ~.)• VAS consumed by his payments, he should
• • •• gene to his employers, and told them that the office
••...• tot worth holding, and that no one could be got to
.it toe •luties at such a pries ; and a change mast have
in kis position. Either his employers would
told him that the 10s. Sd. fee was unnecessary,
• r :Le v would have obtained =amended act of parliament.
ens statute of It:i4 was considered, it was plain that
s, among the expenses incident to the performance
• duties of the office.
. Dixby Seymour, Q.C.. for Mr. Edmunds, coin-
.s. ed his address on behalf of the plaintiff this morning.
_ i.e case will probably last the day.