The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-03 00:00:00

11,1,s1)AY, tfrVT. 20.

The Lord Chief Justice tried a • • al common jury rinses.--
The only Cabe affording the least public intertat was th.
following.

ASIILING V. SMITH.

This was an action to recover 921. for 40 quarters of wheat,
alleged to have been putchased by the deleudant.
It appeared that the corn was exposed for sale in the market.
A person named Ward offered to become iv purchaser, at fifty
shillings but the plaintiff not likinz Ward, refused le let him
have it. Smith some time after said to the plaintiff, If you
don't like A% ard, take 495. end you may insert my name." The
plaintillaceeded to the proposal, and the corn was delivered.--
In April the corn was sold, sad in May the defendant, Smith,
send 1V ard with a cheque to pay for it. The plaintiff's clerk
made out the receipt to Smith, on which Ward said it should
have been made out to hint; and on the refusal of the clerk to
alter it, Smith took op the cheque mud went •way, saying he
would nut pay it at all.—Under the above .ciroutustances the
action was !nought, and the question was, whether Smith Or
Ward were emus
_fide purchasers of the corn.
The Chief Justice, after the witnesses had been heard, ob
served, that there was no proof that Ward porehastd the corn.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff
WI.DNE.4IIIA V, OCT. 30.
sistesoa V. VOUSON.
Mr. Itlarrystt stated, that this was an action brought by a
tradesman in (conduit to recover 621. ss. on a bill of exchange,
accepted by a maiden lady of the name of Stanley, who, since
her discharge under the insolvent act, had entered inter a matri-
monial enge,;ement with a Capt. Pogaion, of the navy, a man of
property. The hand-writing of the defendant being proved--
Mr. Scarlett, fur the defendant, stated, that the hill was
given to a Mr. Fulkoner, a linen-diaper, whilst the lady y, as in
pi ison, hissing been an assistant at a school, Mr. Folluner.pr'
flitting neither to citculate or present this bill fur payment , and
the question an VI, whether the husband was liable Mr the debts
of his wife she being discharged under the insolvent act.
Those* James Corwuod, officer of the Insolvent Cowl, pro-
duced the schedule and discharge of Charlotte babe lla Stanley.
In the schedule was the article—" 631. sa. to Mr. Fulkoeer,
linen-draper, High Holborn, for which a bill of exchange wai
ancepted by me."
Mr. Fulkoner, examined by Mr St-Adele—Witness% is the
(hewer of a bill Mist, Sianlcy, when she accepted it, was ia

pos. pla • • Porter bill she accepted was over-due, and she gave
this bill as a renewal ; Robertson, plaintiff's attorney, went
with witness sabot she was in prison ; she said she expected
money from 'broad, and mentioned the name of it Mr. Vernal,
who was to pay the deft. lbws' gave that bill to Simpson
day or two after he got it, and mentiouud that he must part
with it. Witness owed Simpeou, the plaintiff, ahout
--It was made payable at Ciiatle-huuse Boariling-achoul,
Holloway.
Lord Chief Justice.—This is in the nature of • new debt,
be ruse she gives it as a security whilst in prison.
Mr Scarlet* contended the debt was paid.
Lord Chiefitiatiee.—This bill is a negotiable security, and it
gets into the hands of a bola filid holder.
Mr. Scarlett submitted, that a person being anxious to get
rid of an opposing creditor, gives a bill to a particular creditor,
if then that party could recover, it would he a fraud ei the
other creditors, and contended it was ipso facto void iu 14w.
Mr. Marryal said, it had been decided in the case of a war-
rant of attorney, given by au insolvent debtor, to get rid of an
opposing creditor, that it was void. That was a different rase
from this, where the husband became liable for the acceptance
of his wife.

George Frederick Sargent was present when this lady was
diseliarged on the 30th of May ; she was opposed by Mr.
Millen, an attorney ; there was a discussion shout the creditor
Clack having discharged her on the kith of May; that way a
ground of discussion. Mr. Mullen made tli.l objection, hut
the Court overruled it. Witness did nut attempt to arrest her
The Lord Chief Justice observed, ie thought the Jury would
conclude that her discharge by Clack, un the loth of May, was
a discharge, as likewise going into custody again at the suit of
_ .

William Creen, turnkey of the Marshalses. The Commis-
sioner said to witness, that he could not bring tier up if she was
nut in custody.
Ills Lordship said he hoped this lady and her husband would
have the benefit of the act, but nut to defeat the legal operations
of hills of excbange. The Jury would say whether the dis-
charge giren by Clack on the 16th of May, was not to prevent
her taking the benefit of the act. Likewise her subsequent
arrest at the suit of linch, he not appearing a creditor on her
schedule; and he dischar.;ing her on the 311th of May. just two
days before she was to he brought up, whether this was not an
improper arrest and discharge on thepart of Lincb ?
The Jury found the affirmative of both. Verdict for the
plaintiff, 631. subject to a case, how far the plaintiff could re-
cover on thu bill as a bora /ids holder.

WILSOR U. TUCKER.

This was an action brought against tLe widow and represen-
Wive of the hate Mr. Tucker, an attorney, fur negligence and
inkmanagement in making out a security, by which the plain-
Cif sustained a loss of Vol.

The facts appeared to he these :—A person of considerable
property, named Freshlield, left by will a legacy of 40001. to a
relation, also of the name of Freshlield, in which the plaintiff
had a life interest. They expected to come into possessiou
early in 11120. and Freshlield wanting to borrow money, Wilson
applied ou his behalf to the late Mr. Tuc':er, at Bartlett's-
buildings, Holborn. He was introduced to Mr. Tucker in
May, 11419. He said Freshlield wanted to borrow money, and
proposed to secure the payment by the assignment of a legacy
under the will of Freshlield, the abstract of which he produced.
Mr. Tucker said he could not wish for better security, and
told him to come next morning. According to the evidence of
a Mrs. Watley, who was present at the interview, the plaintiff
requested Mr. Tucker, to go to Doctors' Commons and examine
the will, and not mind what Freshlield said. Wilson and
Wreshlield came the next morning, and a deed was finally
drawn to assign Freshfield's interest. It afterwards appeared
that Tacker did not go to Doctor's Commons to examine the
will, in order to see whether there wns any thing in it which
an assignment of the legacy might affect ; and the consequence
wan, that the deed was made in direct opposition to the will,
which declared, that if any legatee claiming under the will
should bargain, sell, ur dispose of his legacy, he should forfeit
and lose the same, and it would sink into the testator's resi-
duary property.
Tlm plaintiff, under these circumstances lost his interest in
the legacy, and it was contended that the loss basing been oc-
casioned by negligence on the part of Mr. Tucker, his repre-
sentatives were liable to compensate the plaintiff.
Mr. Puller, for the defendant, called Mr. Webb, clerk to the
late Mr. Tucker, who was present when Wilson applied aposi
Freshlield's business. The witness said no instruction was
given by Wilson to go to Doctors' Commons to examine the
will. There was nu application to Mr. Tucker for the purpose
of instructing Win to examine the title of the parties to the lagacy,
but to prepare the security.
The Lord Chief Justice, in his charge to the Jury, said he
was of Ulataall in law that it was the duty of an attorney, pre-
paring a deed of the above description, to go and see the whole
of the will, unless something took place to lead hint to think
each a step unnecessary. The question in this cause was, first,
whether they would believe that the WOMall had proved on the
part of the plaintiff. If they gave credit to her Statealeat, it
was proved that Wilson desired Tucker to go to the Commons ;
Webb, on the other hand, said, that not one word about the
Commons passed.
The Jury then delivered a verdict fur the plaintilT—Da-
rnages 2101.