The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-24 00:00:00

LAW INTFLLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCIf, JAN. 22.

Mr LORD CNIET JUSTICE
THE NATIONAL NANA or SAN CARLOS (M•DAID) v. DC

NEWALES.
Mr. SCARLETT stated that the plaintiff was the National Bank
of San Carlos, established at Madrid, under a charter granted by
Charles 111. The defendant, a Spanish merchant, residing in
Condon. was corresponding agent of the Bank, under an agree-
ment that either side should allow 4 per cent. interest to the other
for money Icing in their har,da. It was to recover 20.20111.
and odd of interest that the action was brought. There
were cases. both in this Court and in the Il.tuse of Lords. in
which a Foreign Company had been allowed to sue in our Courts of
Law.

The ATTOIXEY-GENEIAL stated, that he meant to make no
such objection to the action. The officers of this Bank *ere now
in confinement in the prison of Madrid, and the defendant did not
know to whom to pay the money.
Jr. SCARLETT—One of the Directors of the Bank is now in
this Court.

the Charter of the bank was then put in and rad. It corn-
menced by stating, that the object of granting the Charter
wan to prevent munnpoli•ts, and It proceedzd to grant nume-
rous Monepolies to the bank itgelf. +nett an clothing the array. ticc.
The AT TORN EY-GEN CR•t. objected that the declaration styled
it the 'rational Bank of Sa•t Catlin, whereas it was only a private
incorporated company.
Mr. ticaftLETT—lt is styled the National Bank in the charter

The ATTOiltf:ir.GEmmiat. then oh;ected thus the charter
gave the Bank the right only to sue before the Chamber of Com-
merce, with appeals to Justices. No Chamber of Commerce car
isted in England, and therefore they could bring no action in this
country.
By the Cot: et—They have all the privileges of suing accord.
log to the laws and Courts of Spain.
The TltQa MTV-GI:NS/IAL Allowed that the word: "appeal',
Wore Justices," might, according to its French etymology, mean
an original trial.
The objection wan o`.•erruled, and the verdict given for rlalntiff
Damages 20,204/. 61.

O.*IIIILTT V. /T•XTON.

Mr. STErrtexr opened the pleadings.
Mr. Scaut.ETT stated the e. 1,4, to the Jury. The plaintiff in
this action was the gentleman who now had the honour of tilling
the high and important °Vice of Lord Mayor of the City of Lou..
den. It wax known, in all probability, to the Jury, that Alderman
Garrett had inherited from his father a lucrative and extensive
business as a wholesale tea-dealer ; it occasioned to his client very
considerable regret that he was compelled to bring the present
action ; it war no; altogether his wish ha recover the turns of which
he had been defrauded that induced him to bring the present case
into Court, for his reasonalde expectations on the strsject were ce tn•
bined with a sense of public duty, and of what be owed to society.
There was no ditty more sacred to individuals than that of giving
characters to servants. It was nut only a duty to the individuaL
but a duty of the utmost importance to society in general, and it
ought to be executed by every man with the greatest integrity, In
order that industry and merit might receive those rewards which
ought cot to be bestowed upon fraud and idleness. If those were
excluded from trust and confidence who had betrayed their trust
and violated the confidence. that had been placed in them, it would
make more respectable those who were in the clam of life to be en-
gaged in such employments. He need scarcely observe, that all the
mischiefs arising from false characters might be erected as well by
concealing faults as by misrepresentations. The /servant whose dis-
honesty had given occasion to the present proceelinge was named
Taylor. The pLeintiff would rather that the defendant should be ace
quitted titan found Knilty, for he had no private feelings of resent-
ment to gratify, or views of interest to serve; he wskel for their tree.
diet upon broad and general grounds—upon the grounds that the cis.
fentlant had not only given this dishonest servant a character,
which he knew to be false and unjust, but that he had (lane to with
the direct design of upholding the interest of that servant. The
person whom he had already mentioned, a 51r. Thomas Taylor,
was a traveller employed by the defendaet going journeys into
the west of England and into Wales. The defendant was one of
the partners in the hailer of Ilolah and Company, whole-
sale tea-dealers, and this person had been in the employ of
that house from 1819 until the end of 1821. On ire 31st of De-
cember, in that year, his services to the delendaht term nated,
sod, having previously received notice to quit, he had fir thwith
applied to the plaintiff to be employed in his service as a traveller.
A gentleman of the name of Miller, who had hintaelf bun a tra-
veller, was then in the house of °arrant. and ss he knew this Tay.
lee to be an active, clever man ,of business, he was sent by Mr.
Garnet to make inquiries, of Messrs. finals and Company. as
to the honesty of this Taylor. all other things relating to him
being already known. This Mr. Miller saw the defendant, who
answered that Taylor was perfectly honest, that he was an excel-
lent traveller, and would render the house great services. He fur-
ther pretended, that lie had dismissed him solely on account of
his having contrectiel a bad debt, and given an improper credit.—
Upon this character he was taken Into Mr. Garrett a employment,
his services communed en •thie.bie ie./snuffy. at a salary of
M. a year, to be increased by 25/. a year, until it amounted to
three hundred pounds; he. was to be allowed twenty-three shillings
a day for travelling expenses, with one shilling and ninepence a
mile. Upon these terms he continued in Mr. Garratt's service
until his dismissal last year. lie had apparently conducted him.
self so well, that, upon his last return frein the country, the
plaintiff had ordered him a gratuity of DU- But when the account
eame to be settled, after allowing him the gratuity of 10/ , with
all his arrears, and every kind of expense, there was found to be
a balance due upon the account of 3401. and some odd fraction.
The next day it was found that he had no framer to pay this
balance. These and other circumstances led the plaintiff to write
to his clink-rent correspondents. to ascertain what transactions he
really had hail with them. At length it was diacavered that, soon
after this Taylor bad entered the service, he had begun a system of
embezzling the money he received, anti that he had continued that
system to the time of his dismissal. He di I not give credit in his
journey bcoks for the money he had received, or he gave credit only
for part of the sums, and the customers who hail liquidated their
debts were still debtors upon his master's books, whilst he had
always more money in hand than he was obliged to account I
for. The next journey he would give credit for the balance
to the former customers, and retain the money of some other
customers, and this scheme he continued until it could last no
longer. He bad come into the plaintiff's service in January,'
1822, and his filet fraud was committed on the 211 of April
following. He had received from a man named John Taylor
a balance due to the plaintiff of 771. 10s. 9(1., and for which he had
given no credit whatever. The bill of exchange which he hid
received on this ocraidon he brought into the general account, 1
and kept Taylor still debtor to Mr. Garrett. Ile hat! different'
persons in Court, brought up from Wales and the West of Eng- I
land, who would prove numernuit transactions of this nature.—
He had also received eight hundred pounds, part of which he had
never credited, and the other part he had never paid. He had also
written to say that he had received a bill for fifty pounds from a!
friend at Bristol, and upon the strength or which he had in-
duced the house to give that friend credit to the amount of one ;
hundred pounds. The friend proved to have been an insolvent ;
person, and the story of his having received the fifty pounds was a '
fiction. These numerous frauds led to the indictment of Taylor,
who was tried at Ginticester, and sentenced to transportation. He
would prove that this man had embezzled from the plaintiff's house 1
more than fio9/. Ile ccraid not, it was true, prove that the pretended
ground of the defendant dismissing this man from his service. viz.;
his having allowed a customer to contract a bad debt, was a false- ;
hood ; but he could prove that, in the month of November, before '
he (lid quit the defendant's service, his deficiency on his account 1,
was between 600!. and 7001.; and dint the defendant did make him
produce sureties for the payment of that sum. A letter, in the de-
fendant's hand-writing, dated Oct. 17, 1821, and another letter to!
which the defendant wasp:ivy. dated Dec. 5, 1821, would prove those
facts. The last letter called upon the sureties to pay these deficiencies I,
within 14 days, agreeably to their joint betide; and it stated that •
the amount of the deficiency then ascertained was 6411. The'
fourteen days ran to the 19th Dece:nber, and neither Taylor nor
his sureties had paid the debt ; and yet, within a few days after
this, did the defendant give Taylor an excellent character for
honesty. But it had been ascertained that neither Taylor nor his
sureties could raise the money to pay off this debt, and it was
therefore clear that the defendant had al interest in upholding
the character of Taylor, and In getting him an employment, by ;
which lie could gain money to pay off the d •ht. The defendant, '
finding the sureties not able to pay, hail taken good notes or ac-
eeptanees from Taylor, to pay up his deficiency by instalments of
250/. each ; one war to fall inie in six weeks, and one upon the 4th
June fidlowing• The first note was paid by the sureties, Taylor i
contributing 501. The second bill was removed to a day when
Taylor found mean, in pay the debt, the fact being, that such
means were derived from the frauds he was practising upon the
plaintiff'. Ile did not mean to say that the defendant had wished
Taylor to commit these frauds, for, In that cam. he would h tee]
been as guilty as the criminal himself ; but he had given this false I,
character. knowing well that it was false, and havin.; at the. time
practised this deceit; the greatest interest in upholding Taylor's
credit and character. Ile should ask a verdict for 1001. and 8001.,
but he wan willing to let the amount of damages be settled out of
Court; for the principle of the cause, and that upon which the pre-
sent action turned, was not the amount of fraud committud by '1 ay-
he, but the misrepresentation made of Taylor's character and con-
duct by the defendant.
John Miller deposed—that on the 2d of January, 11221. he called
at the house of llolah slid Co., to inquire the character of Taylor ;
saw the defendant, who took him into a private room, and told him
that he believed Taylor to be honest ; that he was indefatigable,
and would make an excellent traveller, and would scud plenty of
orders, and that our house would have all the benefit of the expe-
rience he had had at his house. Ile said he parted with him only
on account of n bad debt from l'eter'a, but mentioned nothing of
other deficiencies. We therefore engaged him upon this character,
baying made no other inquiries. We allow a traveller, besides his
salary, twenty-three shillings a day for travelling expenas, and
twenty-one shillings a week for his horse. It is his duty to send
up hit accounts twice or three times a week, containing a statement
of all he receives and all that is due. Mere Taylor's book was pro-
d u ced. When Taylor ca me hoen e, he en tered h iaj n urn al in to our ea., h-
book ; the balance is to be paid after the deduction of the travelling
expense; he returned from his last journey on the 2.1 February,
1823, and entered his journey on our cash-book, and 1 settled
that account with him; he paid me VOL in cash and bills. non ac-
cola' of hip( journey. The balance due after this was 3941. its. fid.;
after allowing hitn all his expenses, 531. 15s. was +ll he had to pay,
but the whole balance was demanded. This left a net balance of

4IP

310/. 13.. ro. Mr. Garrett came to town and dismiss:4l him. Mr
Gerratt wrote to the different customers, and ascertained n-any other
deficiencies, amounting to 41101. 9.. 911. independent of the 3401.
134. lid.; part was on his last journey, and part on former
journey. There was also a bad debt of 9fi!. 9s. ill.11:om a man
named James. at Chepstow. supplied with goods in conserplence of
a fetter from Taylor. Taylor said he never received the manly.
I'rma-examined-1 had known Taylor five or six years., bfft not
particularly in the defenilast'a service. Plaint:rand defendant's
fine of Inviinews lie in the same country ; never had any reason tu
believe Taylor deficient in his accounts with 1100 and Company,
until after February last ; I know Mr. Weser, bat he never told
me of any deficiency in the acorn:vita with Hoiah and Clninpany ;
Taylor said he had been dismissed on account of his deficiency of
Peter's debt. On Taylor's return from hi.; las: journey, in Oct*.
her, I asked hint why he had credited in his account tali, receive'
from James at Chepstow, and did not pay the money ; he said that
James had promised to send lint the 601. but had not done so, butt
that hr was conti,lent of receiving the money. I do not recollect wile-
ther James was written to errs the subject. We considered it very
Mcarrect in Taylor, bit we continued him in orcr service Ars
Months afterwards —here an admission of the sums in dispute be-
tween plaintiff and defendant was put in, leaving the question at
isenevelative to the false character, to be tried bj' the Jury.
J. Taylor, cousin to Thomas Taylor—From Fib. Mr!. to
1023, I was supplied with goods by the plaintiff. On 2Y4
April, 1922, I paid to Taylor 77/. 10s. 9:1. on account or Iltrtd,
supplied Ey Garrett. Here the journey hook of Taylor put put us„
in which no credit of any such sum was g v:n to Garrett, the plain-
tiff, by Taylor.
I.:mut-examined by Mr. Pot.eocx—lf never received any corn,
manication frilart plaintiff relative to dint 5111 T) 0f771. 10.. 9d.,
Re-eitamined by Mr. Scsnietv—(lu June 1, 11`22, paid Thcs.
T.:vine MIL on account of the plaintiff:
By the COURT—It really cannot be necnaaary to go 7nto every
payntent.
ATTORNEY-GENltttaL eotrunentil upon the vd-tlntifric
not haying examined his accounts with his etvuntry casto;r:c for se.
long a period.
The witness, Taylor, then want through hit teseralarmenti to
as Thom Taylor, on account of die piewnilf. whilst k • er proved.
the diaerepancies between these sums and the entries ns Aria:r-
imy-books of This. Taylor. The to:al payments made by the wit-
ness amounted to 1.213:. 134. id. and only in one instance did
Thomas Taylor give the plaintiff credit for the precise sum received
of witness.

W. Williams preyed payments to Thomas Taylor on i'count of
the plaintiff, amounting to 2791. 131. 6tl. ; Taylor had riven the'
plaintiff credit for only 1791. Is. M.
Mr. Thomas John, a grocer, of Pe nhroleesbire, prove!! a fraud'
of Taylor on the plaintiff; to the amount of 201. un th 4th sat
January last.
Mr. Thomas James, a grocer, pf Chepstow, proved, that in Sep-
tember, 1823, Taylor gave him credit for goods to the 'Mount of
9111 194-6 d., with the plaintiff's house, knowing that witness had
then recently compounded with his creditors. Witness bid never
paid for thole goods. T..ylor had known him before.
William Hulbert, formerly a cleft in the house of Hoiah and
Co.. proved that the defendant, Mr. Stanton, was a partner in
that Route. The house had a customer, named Peters, who failed in
their debt tinder tear:ice:tar circumstances. In consequence of that
transaction witness had instructions from 31r. Johnson, defeedant's
partner, to serve Taylor with a notice of d:imissal ftum his service•
After notice to quit, but before Taylor 'emitted, witness was ap-
prised of deficiencies in his accounts. His deficiencies amounted to
11311. Witness made out an account of them on the leth of Oct.
1821, by. Mr. Johnson's directions: the account, when made out,
wan handed by witness to Taylor.
A letter in the defendant's hand-wriths, addressed to bloc.
BastM, one of Taylor's mantles, was put in end read, stat!ng that.
Teyltw was going to Dilate] to receive sonic money which be said
he had owing to him there.
Witness stated, that Mr. Stanton conducted the
.correspanding
department of the house after Taylor entered the service.
Anothei letter, in defendant's ha- d.writing, addressed to Mr.
Bastin, dated January 22, 11122, was put in, for the purees, of
showing hie knowledge that there were deficiencies and irregulari.
ties in Taylor's accounts, to the amount of 611/.
Witness said that the deficiencies in Taylor's accounts were ascer-
tained in consequence of sending circulars round to the different
customers.
Cross-examined-Witness wlle dismissed from the service of
Messrs. Eyre, liodgkinson, and Co. Budge-row, Walbrookin
consequence of deficiencies in his accounts; that was last June, ad
he has been in no situation ever since 31r. Johreon took a more
active part in the lice-lures of the travellers than the defendant.
Mr. Thomas Bniiiiiater proved that he paid to Tayior. on aceoutr
orate defendant's !iodise, ft sum of 261 bs. 111. on the 20th Februery,
1820. In consequence of receiving a letter from the defendant'.
houtte in July following, respecting his account, he wrote nut a copy
of his account, and lent it to the defendant, ...hewing that he had
paid all he owed.
Mr. James itostin, st grocer, of Trum, and brother.in.law of
Taylor., proved. that lie was one of Taylor's sureties, to the amonn:
of 1,0001. to protect the defendants from losses. and that he under-
took to pay all delicienclei within fourteen days after notice. Wit-
ness received notice from Holah and Co. and paid them two bills to
the anionnt of 254.11. each, to make good Taylor's deficiencies. Wit.
ewe paid the amount of time bill". Tins paid the whisk 44*
loo's deficiencies, deducting some salary owing to him. ,% Whose
is still claimed of witness to the amount of 351. 19e. 9d. ea Tay.
tor'. account.
This was the plaintiff's ease.
The A ere ereOKetnat.thenaddressedtheJury on bebso
of the defendant, and called their attention to the serious nature u •
the chaege against his client, a most respectable tradesman,
had hitherto bOrne in life the meet honourable and irreproachable
character. He was charged with having mule a fraudulent
representadon to the plaintiff: The Jury ought to bear that in
mind, that he was charged with having made a fraudulent repee.
sentation, not for his own benefit, but for that of another. Unless
the Jury . were satisfied that the defendant acted from fraudulent
motives, tt was quite clear that the plaintiff could net recover in
this action. He should show that the defendant was incapable of
the conduct imputed to him, that he had acted Lona lids, fairly, and
without any improper motive. It would be proved that the
plaintiff and his partners considered the conduct of Taylor to be
un xceptionable. They never believed that he had conducted him-
self fraudulently whilst in their service. The fact was, that
Taylor, from his first entrance into the house, owed them a baLeace
of are:mint, for which they gave him credit, upon the faith of some
reversionary property to which he was entitled. They knew that
he would be ultimately able to pay them, and, therefore, tilty gate
him credit for what was due to them at the end of each journey
which he made far the house. Taylor had been in their service
for two rare end was it to be believed that his empleycre would
have continued him so long in their urvice if they had env doubt
of his honest y ? Surely not. The retention of hint in their em-
ployment so long, demonstrated their good opinion of his honesty,
integrity, and activity as a servant. The letters produced did cot
show that Taylor had been dismissed for dishonesty, that he had
been guilty of frond, but merely on account of his having con-
tracted some bad debts on account of the house. The only quo_
Lion was, whether the mere deficiency in the accounts amounted to
a guilty knowledge on the part of the defendant, that Taylor hat
been guilty of fraud and dishonesty 1 The fact was. that Taylor
had been discharged, not by the defendant, but by Mr. Johnsen.
Unless the Jury were satisfied that the defendant acted fraudu-
lently, falsely, and from sinister motives, it was impossible to make
hint listek Tee object of this ac-ion was, indirectly, to make the
defendant a suety for Taylor to the plaintiff. Bat there was no
pretence for so doing; the defendant could nave no benefirial in-
terest in setving Taylor ; his interest, as a tea-dealer, would have
been &free ed by recommending him to the plaintiff; because the
connections of his own house might, by such meats, be withdrawo.
through Taylot's exertions as an active nattier. Even no indirect
motive could be suggested, and certainly none had been proved
on the contrary, it was proved that the defendant's house was
clearly indemnilied from aU losses, by means of the security abide
Taylor had given. But had not that laintiff himself been guiltyy.
of great imprudence and want of catmint ? Hal he not fumed
only to blame for any losses he might hare sustained ? He hart
early intimation of some irregularities in Taylor's account ; Mid
yet after that he continued bite in his employment. Taylor had
been detected in an act of fraud and dishonesty, and still the
plaintiff, after that, continued hint in his service for more than two
years. Under such eircu:nstances, then, could the plaintiff be at
liberty, after such a lapse of time, to turn romtnd, and seek hone
the defendant an indemnity for those losses which he had sustained
in consequence of his own remissness and negligence ? If the
Jury were of opinion that the dtfendant had acted bona
,fide, and '
without fraud, they would have no difficulty in rolouncing a
verdict for his client, considering not merely tl e amount of ea-
mai" but also the injury which a ve.d•ct for the plaintiff would
w,tk to the defendant's character. He would sit down, contilently
anticipating a favourable result to l.is client.
Mr. John Johnson, formerly a part tee with the defendant,
proved that the firm ceased to exist in August 1871 The defend.
ant had been in the house for seven years, and conducted the Wt.
respoeding department. In July or August, 1013, Taylor b.ra,The
traveller to the house, and contieued something more than two
years. He performed twelve or fourteen journeys during that time.
ilia accounts were generally baleticcs from journey to journey, but
the balances were caeried forward to the next journey. At the
end of the first journey, in 1819, the balance against him was 80f.
The next balance was 1321. 7*. 3d.: the next 2321.; the nest
3881. ICs. Gil. ; t e next 3381. 16s. 61. ; the next was 3001., which
was charged to the private account which he had with the house.
There was a settlement at that time. November 10. 1829, there
was a balance against him of 36e1. lOs. 3d. In January, 1821,
there was 103/. 70. 109. ; March 12, 1821, there was 100/. charged
to his private account, and a bemire of 7841. 13s. 3d. la June of
that year, there was 2871 13s. 111. ; August 21. there was a balance
66.11. 16s. The last balance against him was October 8, 11121,
which was 8371.115. fid. He was discharged on the Ist of Januar,.
1822, having received notice on the Ist October previoudy. Wet
mess wrote him a letter on the occas.oo, stating as his romps for
dismissing him, that he had, during the last two years, contracted
so many bad debts, which destroyed all confidence between hint
and his employers. The defendant differed with witness atout
rrting wi.h Taylor, on the ground that he was an useful traveller.
the act of dismissing Taylor was principally witness's own. Mr.
Stanton wished to keep him. Up to that time witness had ter.
tainty no reason to think that Taylor was dishonest.
Cross-examined.-Ile superintended the traveller's accen,es,
though he did not take any active part in that department of the
business. The amount of salary was credited annually. Taylor had
a salary of 1361. and 601. for his horse. The last balance of 627/.
odd, was not ascertained until circulars had bets sent to different
customers. It was found upon that occasion, that there were only .
three items which did not agree with tie own account, amounting
to 100/. These items were added to the balance. During witness's

_

.:

~.~

... •... •...• . •., •-• ..... ••••••• ... , as MP .....“, nil' woe Knlcra:lT 0114.111CC11 from Journey to plirtley, Dot
I ill upholding Taylor's ! the balances were dried forward to the next journey. At the - I
:edict fur 1001. and 8011!., I end of the first journey, in 1819. the balance against him was 1110/.
la:lieges be settled out of The next balance was 1321. 7a. 3d. t the next 232/.4 the nest
that upon which the lire- 3331. 11:s. 64. 4 t e next 3581. 15s. 6.1. ; the next was 3001., which
fraud committed by lay- was charged to the private account which he had with the house.
aylor's character and con- ' There was a settlement at that time. November 10. 1820, there
was a balance against him of 3611. Ns. 21. In January, 1621,
' January, 1821, he called there was 103/. 4a. 10.1. ; March 12, 1621, there was 1001. chargest
! the character of Taylor ; to him private account, and a biliace of 2311. 13s. dd. Its June of
rivate room, and told him that year, there was 2871 13s. R.I. ; August 21. there was a balance
tat he was indefatigable, of 66.11. 16*. The last balance against him was October 8, 1121.
I
and would scud plenty of which was 637/.lls. fid. He was discharged on the lit of January. i
I the benefit of the cape- 1822, having received notice on the Ist October previously. Vt.:t-
he parted with him only nese wrote him a letter on the occasion, stating as his rano, for
iut mentioned nothing of dismissing him, that he had, during the last two years, contracted
I him upon this character, so many bad debts, which destroyed all confidence between him
'
3vt a travellcr, besides his and his employers. The defendant differed with witnrse about
travelling expense, and pitting with Taylor, on the ground that he was an useful traveller.
It is his duty to send The act of dismissing Taylor was principally witness's own. Mr.
rk, containing a statement Stanton wished to keep him. lip to that time witness had err.
re Taylor's hook was pro- tainly no reason to think that Taylor was dishonest.
ed hiainurnal i nto our cash- Cross-examined.—lye superintended the traveller's accenitv.
Deduction of the travelling though he did not take any active part in that department of the
amey on the 24 February, bananas. The amount of salary was credited annually. Taylor lad
caah-book, and I settled a salary of 1501. ant SOL foe his horse. The last balance of 1127/.
•
Y. in cash and bills, on ac- odd, was not ascertained until circulars had bens sent to differens
rter this was 3941. Os. 64.; customers. It wet found upon that occasion, that there were only
ss. wag +ll he had to pay, three items which dad not agree with his own account, amounting
this left a net balance of to lea These items were added to the balance. During wienses'e 1
•
i
• . .