The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-11-20 00:00:00

IMPORTANT TO CONFIDENTIAL CLERKS AND
THEIR EMPLOYERS.

GARTSIDE V. OUTRAM.—In the Vice Chancellor's Court, on
Tuesday, Sir Wm. :Page Wood heard and do c ded upon a ques •
tion of the u most importance to merchants and brokers, and
their confidential clerks. The plaintiffs in this case were wool
brokers, carrying on business at Liverpool, and the defendant had

been originally their apprentice, and afterwards their sales clerk
for three years up to July, 1855, when be left their service.
The prayer of the bill was, that tphaertidnegfewnidtha,ntdismtriigbhuttibnea,or
otherwise
strained frm
coom
mun
copyingicatinpguboirisim'inakging known any copies or ex-
tracts or enrries made or obtained by him, or in his possession,
of any of the books, accounts, letters, or documents of the
plaintiffs, or in anywise relating to their business,' or from
disclosing any of the dealings and transactions of the plaintiffs
in relation thereto ; and that the defendant might be 01 tiered
to deliver up all such copies, extracts, and entries as had been
obtained by him. The plaintiffs, by their bill, stated that they
had no reason to suppose that the defendan,t had possessed him-
self of any such copies or extracts until about the middle of
January, 1856, when some of their principal customers applied
to them for explanations as to various items of their accounts.
and at an interview which took p'ace in consequence, it was ad.
mitted, that they had obtained private information as to the
plaintiff's transactions; and had been furnished with extracts
from their hooks and accounts, but they refused to state from
whom such information had been obtained. But the plaintiff.
afterwards discovered that the defendant had availed himself of
the facilities afforded- by his situation to obtain the extracts and
copies aforesaid ; and they alleged that the documents from
which the copies and extracts were made were of a cone
dential nature, and that the publication of them would be
attended with great injury and inconvenience to their busi—
ness and to the interests of other parties. The defendant
put in an answer, in which ho alleged that he had discovered
that the plaintiffs carried on their business in a manner which
was fraudulent towards their customers, and in consequence of
that he had left their service ; that his suspicions having been
aroused, he made the copies and extracts for his own satisfac-
tion, and instanced specific cases in which customers had been.
according to his view, defrauded. He alleged that the plaintiffs,
whenever wool was sent to them to dispose of, with a limit of
price winch was below the market price, were in the habit of
taking it themselves, and sending fictitious sold notes by which
it was made to appear that the wool was sold at the price
limited, and then they sold it at the real market price, and
pocketed the difference ; and he set out one particular case, in
which a person, from information furnished by him, had had
his accounts investigated, and had recovered from the Vaintiffs
£1,500 by the award aim arbitrator to whom it bad been
agreed to refer the matter. The defendant then filed cross
interrrogatories, and called upon the plaintiffs to answer quest.
tions with a view to extract from them evidence to substantiate
the case he had set up. To these interrogatories the plaintiffs
put in an answer, but declined to answer those which related to
the alleged frauds, upon the ground that they were irrelevant to
the real question at issue. To this the defendant took
exception, and upon that the case came on for argument.
Mr. James and Mr. Giffard appeared for the defendant
in support of the exceptions. They contended that there
was no privilege in cases of this description, that although
under ordinary circumstances the court would restrain
an agent or other confidential servant front disclosing the
transactions which came to his knowledge from the position
in which he was placed, yet when those transactions were
based in fraud the privilege vanished. This doctrine was
based upon the principle that it was for the good of mankind
that there should be no confidence between scoundrels. Mr.
Eddis, for the defendant, contended that the present was a
case in which the general privilege of masters and clients,
that their confidential transactions shall not be revealed, must
be maintained, The cases in which that privilege was held to
be lost were cases iu which the fraud was apparent upon the
face of the transaction, and was founded upon the principle
that the court of equity would not lend itself to assist in
a fraud. Here the defendant only made roving suggestions of
fraud, and sought to get evidence to establish them. The
Vice-Chancellor, after reading the prayer of the bill, sail the
equity was plain, well recognised, and most salutary, by which
confidential servants were prevented from disclosing the
transactions to which they became privy. But there were
cases in which the confidential relationship never really
existed. No one could make another his confidant in a crime
or fraud, so as to bind him not to reveal it. The argument
was, that the defendant was not entitled, on a roving sugx
gestion that there might be fraud, or on a general suggestion
that he could disclose fraud, to ask for an inspection of the
plaintiff's books to substantiate such statement. But here
the case was not one of roving suggestion, it was a clear,
sharp, plain, marked, and defined statement of fraud. The
statement was in effect, " You employed me to copy transac-
tions which were fraudulent ; you took to yourself the
purchase of your customer's goods whenever the limit was
below the market price, and sent fictitious sold notes,
and these notes came under my notice. Patties have been
defrauded, anti have, in consequence of my information,
recovered money." And, in particular, he specified one
Rathbone, who had recovered £1,500, and numerous other
cases of the same sort, and stated that others might recover;
but if his mouth was stopped they would never be able to do
so. The question was, whether a party could say that the
protection which was extended to persons in confidential re-
lationship was to be extended to those who have had fraudu-
lent transactions brought under their notice. Thole was no
such protection in such a case, even between attorney and
client. There was some little discrepancy between the de-
cided cases which were collected in Mr. Pitt Taylor's Book on
Evidence, section 851, but he preferred the opinion of Mr.
Juati, e Pattoson, who compelled an attorney to produce a
forged will upon the trial of his client for tho forgery. lie
could not put the argument better titan it was put by Mr.
Setj7,ant Tisdale, in 6' Annesley v. Lord Anglesea," 17, St.
Trials, p. 1229, " If an attorney is employed as an attorney in
any unlawful or wicked acts, his duty to the public obliges hint
to disclose it. No private obligation can dispense with that
universal one, which lies on every member of the society to
discover every design which may be formed, contrary to the
laws of the society, to destroy the public welfare." And the
judgment of Baron Mounteney, in the same ease, was to the
same effect. Suppose, in the case of the fictitious dock wars
rants which had been before the court lately, the party charged
with the forgery had had a clerk, could he have filed a bill
against the clerk, to prevent hint front disclosing the facts con-
nected with the transaction ? He cou'd not admit any such
doctrine ; to do so would be to encourage fraud. If the de-
fendant made out the case set up in his answer, it would defeat
the bill, and therefore he was entitled to interrogate the Vain
tiffs with respect to these transactions, for the purpose of
establishing his case, and the exceptions must be allowed.

DARING ATTEMPT TO ROB THE BANK

OF IRELAND

A most impudent and daring attempt to eff-xt an entrance
into the branch of the Bank of Ireland, Carlow, occir red
on Monday night, About ono or two o'clock several per-
sons got into the rere of the premises in question witl^ut
being perceived, although they had to pass several wicked
dogs, and having cut a pane of glass out of the window of
the bask door, they endeavoured by means of a chisel or.
lever, to force the lock of an iron gate which protected the
back of the house. After several strenuous efforts they had
to give up the task in despair. According to the regulations
of the bank, a porter slept in the office, provided with arms,
but being wrapt in the arms of Morpheus he did not hear
the noise. The ruffians next proceeded, by means of a
ladder, to try their luck on Mr. Stoyte's premises, which
adjoins the bank, but in this they, were likewise unsuccessful.
They tore the wirework which was on the outside of one
of the windows, and cutting a pane of glass out with a
diamond, one of the fellows put in his hand and found
beneath a large quantity of delpht, Fearing that the noise
that must nec-ssarily be created by treading on the ware,
they abandoned the place and tried their fortune in the next
house, Mr, William Whitmore's, where they were more
successful. They effected an entrance, and proceeded to
break open doors, desks, drawers, Sze., in various apartments.
Having secured a number of silver spo3ns, knives and forks,
and other valuables, they lighted on a mahogany box,
belonging to the Friendly Brothers, which they conveyed to
the yard, and broke open with some blunt implement, It
contained a gold snuff-box, value £5O, a valuable silver
cork-screw, a case of pistols, and some papers, but in
their hurry, the first two artioles escaped the netice of the
thieves, and were found with the b )yt in the place this
morning. it is not yet known what amount of property
was stolen from Mr. Whitmore, but the police are on the
scent of the ruffians, who are supposed to be some of the
disbanded militia or ticket-of-leave men who are at present
prowling through the c )untv.

LANCASTER ELECTION.—In reply to a letter from the
secretary of the Ballot Society, Mr. Garnett, the candidate
for Lancaster, declares himself an opponent to the ballot,
because there is no necessity for its adoption, and because
the logical consequence of the adoption of the ballot at
elections is its adoption in the divisions of the House of
Commons. It may consequently be assumed that Mr.
Garnett desires that voters may be either paid or punished
for their votes, and, therefore, that (in Mr. Cobden's
celebrated phrase) a record may be kept against every man
how he votes. As to Mr. Garnett's second argument, a
would-be M.P. should be aware of the unanswerable
refutation of it given by the late Sir W. Molesworth.
INSECURITY OF LIFE AND PROPERTY IN PADDINGToN,
LONDON.—On Tuesday afternoon a deputation of upwards
of eighteen gentlemen, from the parish of Paddington,
waited upon Sir George Grey, by appointment, at the
llome7office, for the purpose of bringing under the notice of
the Home Secretary the insufficient number of the police
force doing duty in that district. A varifty of outrages
against person and property were brought forward which
had not been detected by the police ; and it was stated that
the rateable value of the property in the parish of Paddington
is £522,570 ; the population upwards of 50,000 ; the
streets repaired by the parish, twenty-two miles— not taken
to by the parish, ten miles ; and the payments to the police
£10,750 a year. The deputation did not complain of the
inefficiency of the police individually, but strongly urged
upon the Home Secretary the propriety of increasing,
without delay, the number of police in the parish of
Paddington. Sir George Grey paid marked attention to
the statements laid before him, asked many questions
bearing practically upon the subject,and promised immediate
enquiry.