The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-10-26 00:00:00

lllr. 1031W1107r
edam Tieover from
d bean placed in hls .
was lost in consequence
rte.Urszstac. and the

The fans were very short, and were nearly all
patties, and the case was in reality rather for t.
Jury. The defendant was the plaintiff's attorney.
structll by him to effect the sale of a small estate
The estate was accordingly sold, and the proceeds oft , -.
upwards of 5.,000/., were put Into his hands, forthe purpose:
invested in the funds. This took place en the 21st August,
There were some small deductions to be made out of the purchase-
money, and as their amount was not at that time exactly sseertained,
Mr. NI art paid the money in his owq name into bill own banking.
house, Messrs. Marsh, Strseey, and Co. for tacurity, till these
Points should be settled. These deductions were the bißs of a Mr.
Dawlield. On the 28th of August Mr- Cawfield called on Ale.
Ward for the purpose of having them settled, when there was a
question whether one of the bills for 471. have
be raid out of the
ptirchne-motley. It Was necessary to have the consent of Mrs.
Mary Robinson. Accordingly File. Cal/field wrote to her for this
perpeae; but as be was going out of town for a few days, he desired
her to send her answer to slr. Ward. %nen he called again on
Mr. Ward on the 9th September, Mrs. Robinson's consent bad
been obtained, and his bills were paid on Saturday the 10th. Sa-
tes alay was not a regular penile: day in the funds, and therefore
Me. Ward waited till Monday with the idea of investing the
money in the funds on that•day. On Monday the banking-house
et Marsh and Co. stopped payment, and the whole was lost.
The ATTORNET-GENERAL contended, on these facts, that Mr.
Ward was liable to the' plaintiff. He contended that he ought in
Iprudence to have kept out &small sum to make the payments which
mere to be made out of the produce of the sale, and to have invested
dae residue immediately, and particularly, thst,:under such eircum-
names. he was guilty of negligence in not erecting the investment
fei the funds on Saturday the 10th of September, immediately on
Me ascertaining, after the payment of Mr. Cawfiehrs bill, the actual
SOW t to be invested. lie also contended, that by paying the
mew /me hie own banking.house, and on his own account, when
hear Awe Messrs. Hare and Co. were the bankers of .Me. Ro-
-1 bipme, be made himself liable, according to the recent decisions
Itif the Court of Chancery, for whatever accidents might befall it
,While so placed.
Mr. Cawfield examined by the Honourable Mr. Law,—l am a
surveyor. I had some bills which were to be paid out of the pur-
chase money of the estate. I called on Mr. Ni and on the 28th Au-
gust for information on the subject. I delivered him the bills;
they amounted to 95!. It was on a Friday ; Mr. Ward told me
that he had received a communication from Mrs. Robinson.
Cross-essolined by Mr. SCARLETT—One of the bills was 47!.
which was not to be paid without Mrs. Robinson's consent. I
wrote to her fur her consent, and as I was going out of town, I de-
sired her to send her answer to Mr. Ward. I called again on the
Ith September, and he told me that he bad got an answer, and paid
moon the 10th.1
Re-examined by the Art* °nitre-Ger nac.—All the sums
were arrangediwith ill r. IVard on the 28th of August, and the only
question was, whether the 47/. should be paid out of the purchase
money.
Admissions were here made on the pert of the defendant, that
the purchase-money was paid to him on the 21st August ; that he
had paid the money to Aleuts. Marsh and Co., his own bank-
ers, and that he paid it on his own account.
Mr. Moffat, a clerk in the house of Hoare and Co., was called
to prove that Mr. Ward had been in the habit of paying cash into
their house on the account of Mr. Robinson, and consequently that
be knew theirs to be ale. Robinson's banking-house.
Ale. SCARLET 1, for the defendant, contended that his client had
acted with the utmost prudence. Could lie have kept this money in
his own house ? Had it been stolen thence, what an outcry there
would have been. Then, if it must, for the sake of security, be
placed somewhere, how should he select any particular house?
It was natural to place it with his own bankers: the credit of
one banking-house was as good as another. Mr. %Vaal did not
place it there for any accommodation for himself, for he had ati
that time in their hands a balance of 7,0001. in nis favour. A ,
man cannot reasonably be required to take more care of other
people's property than he would of his own. He said that the
law had been adverted to by his Learned Friend ; but he should,
now contend that his client was not liable on the authority of
Knight v. Lord Clifton, 3 Atkins, 408, in which Lord Hardwick*
held that the receivers of certain rent who had placed it, pending
the decision of some question In the hands of a third person foe'
entarity, and that person failing in the mean time, were not habit
kw the Ion: and also on the case of Boughton v. Rowley, 3 Vesey,
au, which was a case of executors, who had placed money which
was to be employed according to the directions of the testator in
the purchase of real estate, in the hands of a person of supposed
-eseponsibility : that person failed before the money was so cap.
Sled, and a bill filed in Chancery, to compel the executors to re-
rand was discharged. The Learned Gentleman concluded by
laying, the question is simply this--whether my client is any more
liable for putting the money in the hands of :Messrs. March and Co.
than if he had put It in the bands of any other banker, or in his
own chamber.
Mr. tic•axerr here called evidence to 15hOI, that et the very
time when he placed slr. Robinson's money with Illesses. Marsh
and Co. he bad nearly 7,0001. of his own money there.
The ATTORNETAIENERAI. was about to reply, when
The LORD Cater Jeer hex said, there are three ways in which,
wader the eircumstancee of Mr. Ward, a person may act. He may
amp the money in his own house; if he lose it by robbery, and that
aebbery be by force, then there cannot be a question as to the lia-
lglity ; if the robbery be miner, there may perhaps be seine doubt.
i may place the money with a banker n his own name ; or he
nay enter it in a separate and distinct account, and state on what
renent it is placed there, which is the course often adopted by
reeekeitease, and prevents all possibility of hatility. But if a
pent SOO a certificate for it In his own name, he makes himself
a debtor to the owner of the money. This is undoubtedly the law,
and though the present use is a very hard one, I cannot help it.
Verdict tor the plaintiff—Damages 5,1361.
Mr. SCARI,ETT—There is no imputation on Mr. Wattle.
The CHIEF JETSEICS•••4Ih no, certainly not; none at all.
This is a very hard can. I am very sorry for it. If it is at all
necessary for any one to speak to the respectability of Mr. IVard's
character, I am ready to do it myself.