The National Register.
London, England, 1821-07-15 00:00:00

THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

LA* REPORT.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH,
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11.
AM ATTORNEY STRUCK ore THE ROLL'.
Mr. Cain libel l sliewed cause agaladl a rule obtained by
Mr. Stocks, calling upon an atimney to sliew cause why
he should not pay back the sum of 491. which lie had
received from a client, and why he should not be struck
off the Rolls for improper practice? The application
was made to the court on the ground that the attorney
received from his client, the defendant in an action, the
sum of 491. fur the purpose of paying it over to the
plaintiff in the action, he applied to his own use, and
left the defendant to he proceeded against in execution.
Mr. Campbell read the affidavit of the attorney, who
did not deny the misapplication of the money, but peti-
tioned the court not to grant the motion, on the ground
that various circumstances of a pecuniary nature had
occasioned the non-payment of the defendant's money
to the plaintiff in the cause. It was stated by way of
reparation that he had offered to pay the defendant the
' money, with costs and expences incurred, in case appli-
cation was not made in the court. It was also alleged
that he was a young attorney, and that his embarrass-
ment had arisen front an executor not paying a legacy.
The Chief Justice giving judgment in this matter said
" We are called oil iu this case to exercise a painful
duty, but we must perform it. Our duty to the suitors
of this court requires that we should not suffer a person
to continue an ullicer of this court who is found receiv-
ing money from his client, and applying it to his own
use, instead of paying it over to the plaintiff in the ac-
tion, leaving his client to be taken in execution. The
rule against him must be absolute."
This being the last (lay of term, the court sat to a late
hour hearing and deciding motions.
FRIDAY, JULY 13.
Ifti AND CO. V. GALLOWAY.
This action was brought by the plaintiffs, who are
letter founders, against the defendant, to recover 401. for
a new set of types made for the Slalestnars newspaper in
1819.
Air. Scarlett stated, that soon after the death of Mr.
Lovel, the proprietor of the Sistetntan, Mr. Sampson
Perry and the defendant, Mr. Galloway, one of the exe-
cutors of Mr. Love!, conducted the paper. It was found
on that occasion that new types were necessary, and the
plaintiffs were ordered to supply it. The order was left
in April, 1819, and after it was executed, and the letter
ready for delivery, the Invoices were left at the Statesman
office. sir. Fry, junior, called several times and saw
Mr. Galloway, who said there was a dispute between
himself and Mr. Perry about the house in Fleet street,
but he hoped the types would soon be delivered and set-
tled for. The types, however, were never delivered, but
remained ready for delivery. lie defendant being again
applied to, and asked whe.her the types might be deli-
vered to the order of Perry, said, " If you deliver the
types to Mr. Perry, I will not be accountable." The
plaintiffs finding they could not get eithlq Mr. Perry or
Mr. Galloway to be answerable, brought their action
against both. NI r. Perry soodered ititiguk lit to go by (le-
, fault, and Mr. Galloway defended the action, on the
ground that he had not made himself liable by giving any
order.
After the plaintiff's case had been proved by set eral
witnesses, Mr. Marryatt addresed the jury for the defen-
dant.
The Chief Justice then interposed, and observed, that
as the types had not had not been delivered, but remain-
ed in the hands of the plaintiff, he should advise the
parties to withdraw a juror.
The counsel on both sides agreed to adopt his lord-
ship's suggestion, and a juror was withdrawn.
ADAMS N. PENNY.

This was a proecvd ug arising out of a writ of error,
brought by James Adams against Joseph Penny, to re-
vive a judgment on a %Tarrant of aitortiey. The oelelid-
alit said, in the pleadings, that Adapts was twenty-olie
years of age at the Onte of signing the S:1111 103111.1inetat,
and the r►ucst.nn W•IS whether lie was or was or was 1101.
The jury, alter souse deliberation, found a verdict for
the defendant.