The National Register.
London, England, 1811-07-21 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF SESbION, EDINBURGH.

SIR FRAIIICIS EI7RDETT. t'. MR. SCOTT.

Mr. Jeffery stated, that this was a very short and common
ease on the part of his client, Sir Francis Burdett, who was
suing Mr. Scott upon a bond for 50001. of borrowed money.
That Mr. Scott had put in long and secial defences, every syl-
lable of which was denied by Sir F. Burdett; but besides this
positive and general denial, Sir Francis objected to the relevancy
of the defence. Sir F. Burdett positively denied that any trust,
of any sort or kind, was ever reposed in Mr. Scott. That the
defence against the present action was in substance as follows :
A Lady, whose name it is unnecessary to mention, having
been seduced by Sir Francis Burdett, became pregnant by him,
and the rarties were reduced to a state of the greatest distress
and embarrassment. It became the duty of Mr. Scott to pro-
tect this female and her child, and to obtain from Sir Francis
some provision fur the latter, to be used as future exigencies
might require, as it was then uncertain to whet extent a provi-
sion might be necessary. In spring, 1801, Sir Francis granted
his bond, in the English form, to Mr. Scott, for the sum of
40,0001. cicfi asible upon payment of 20,0001. within 4ix months
from the date thereof. It was understood that Mr. Scott was to
use this bond according to his discretion, for the purpott already
alluded to. Soon after the bond was granted, Sir F. agreed to
pay to Mr. Scott the sum of 10,0e01. in part of the bond; but
nett having the whole of that sum at his command, he paid
30001. only, and Mr. Scott indorsed the said payment of 500(1.
upon the bond. Sir Francis, as well as the Lady, had apprc-
lieLded an immediate public disclosure and disgrace; but es
this, very luckily for them, did not follow, Mr. Scott, ender
the circumstances of the case, did not think it necessary to call
upon Sir Francis for any further payments upon this bond. But
be thought it proper to retain the bond in his custody ; and, to
provide against any bad consequences that might happen in case
of his own death, he made a will, ti? which he bequeathed the
50001. he had received from Sir Francis as a legacy to the chive! :
and appointed as his executor, with the same power over Sir
rancis's bond that he himself had, Charles Warren, Esq. Bar-
rister at Law, who was well acquainted with all the circum-
stances of the transaction. During the autumn of 1805, and the
spring of 1806, Sir F. and Mr. Scott had some differences
with respect to Sir Francis's bond, and the bond for 20,C001.
waich Sir D. for reasons best known to himself, demanded hack
front Mr. Scott; but Mr. Scott positively insisted upon retaining
the seool. for the benefit of the said child. At this time, how-
ever, Sir Francis being uneasy that this bond for C. 0,00 1. was
till out against him, reTtest4A that if Mr. Scat!, tm.ivr the cir-

- •
cumqtances of the case, thought the r,ooo 1. already paid to he
sufficient, the 20,0001. bond might be discharged. To this Mr.
Scott not only agreed, but 'to satisfy Sir F. Burdett, executed a
bond fur the money so paid by him, with the interest accumu-
lated on it, amounting in the whole to 57501. which was depo-
sited in the hands of Mr. Warren, as Mr. Scott's obligation tor
the money to Sir Francis, and to be delivered to Sir Francis in
case the child should die. But it' the child should be alive at the
end of the five years, then Sir Francis was to discharge Mr.
Scott's bond in the same manner that Mr. Scott was to dis-
charge Sir Francis's bond. Both bonds were accordingly depo-
sited in the hands of Mr. Warren; but it would appear that Sir
Franais was successful in getting from Mr. Warren this bond
even before the expiry of the five years, during which time Mr.
Warren was to retain it in his custody; and although the child
is yet alive, and Mr. Scott is hound to keep the money received
from Sir Faancis, for the benefit of the said chili, Sir Francis
has thought proper to institute the present action for payment of
the bond; in doing which, be seems to have totally forgotten
every circumstance relating to the transaction, its meaning and
object, anti the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties
at entering into it. The defence against the present action„
therefore, is, that Mr. Scott is not liable to pay the contents
of the said bond; and that lie ought to be assuilzied with full
expences.
Mr. JaalPry stated, that the whole of the. defence was false
and calumnious; that Sir Francis denied that he ever had a
child except by his own wife; and that he had only read the
defence, merely to argue against the relevancy of it ill point of
law.
Mr. Scott (in the absence of his Counsel) said, that although
Sir Francis Burdett had come forward with a positive denial of
every syllable of these defences, yet it was in Mr. Scott's power
to prove the falsehood of this denial, under Sir Francis Burdett's
own hand, and by a variety of evidence which he insisted upon
being allowed to adduce, that he might be able to keep himself
right and safe in this infamous business.
The Jude (Lord M DOWLIN a), aftar a hearing of consi !a-
rable lengt allowed Mr. Scott to give in a condescendence of
what he oliered to prove, and Sir Francis Burdett to answer it.