The National Register.
London, England, 1822-10-20 00:00:00

Ur. Corley. for the difsidest eeeleaded that the scathe
weld mot be maiataised. There was so proof of malice. It
was a proceeding arising out el peeeniery transettioas betwees
the parties, and the effect of forgetfulness en the part of the
defectisal.
The Lord Chief Justice was or opinion the action wield he
gestainad ; at the name time the Jury ought to consider whether
there was proof of malice. The Jag foetid a verdict for the
phantii—Damages 111.
FRIDAY, OCT. Is.
COWIE e. H. NUGENT DELL.
The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant to re-
*over money bad and received under the following eirosm-
Mamas
is an engraver, in Bt. Martin's-lase, and the de-
feedsat. according to his own statement, is a barrister, resi-
ding at No. 1, Royal Terrace, Adelphi. The defendant had
the reputation of being • genealogist. The plaintiff, who is
the nephew of • Mr. Cooke, who died in 1792, possessed of
large estates, considered himself heir at law, sod be applied
to Mr. Bell to make out his title. He detailed his claim, and
Mr. Bell said be had no doubt be should be able to establish
the plaistiffs title to the estate, and also get him a Peerage
dormant in the family. Mr. Cooke some time after his appli-
cation received the following letter :
" have reireted on the statement made by you, re-
kiting to the estates of year deceased uncle, and as Barristers
rinsed legally bring actions for fees, I have suffered by my
inability to carry on such actions with effect. As it will be
necessary to snake out a pedigree to show your affinity to your
deceased uncle, according to the law of genealogy of descent,
1 could not for any sem less than 501. compile a pedigree, and
give such advice as I could impart, coasistestly with my pro-
fessional ditties." " H. A. BELL.'
The plaintiff having received the above letter, thought the
defendant had examined all the records and charters enrolled
since the reign of William the Conqueror, and not having se
much money, went to his friend %Voodbunse, who advanced
501. which was paid to the defendant. On the Ith of Ds:ember
following the defendant wrote another letter, in substance as
follows:
" St tt,-1 enclose you the pedigree of Sir Anthoey Cooke,
and the demise under which the family estate cause to your
sacle's posseasios I base devoted the whole of my time sines
the 21st of October to your business, and as that sine is va-
luable to me, you are my debtor. There are Counsel's fees to
be paid, sad as I want more money to carry es the was with
vigour, you must procure smother fool."
The defendant at the same time furnished an account of the
money expended. The items were curious. Mr. Cooke again
consulted his friend Mr. Woodboorae, who gave another dr**
for 1001 which also was paid to the defendant. A few days
after the payment of the second sum the plaintiff and his
friend called on the defendant to ascertain what progress be
bad made, when, to their great astonishment, they were told
be bad left London for Ireland, and would not be back before
March. On the defendant's return the plaintiff and Mr. W.
waited oa him, and asked what progress he bad made? The
defendaat said, " I have examined many records, and the pro-
secution of this claim will cost more money than I thought
the issue is doubtful, sad I think it better to go no further."—
The plaintiff replied, " Then give me back my money." This
the defendant refused ; and in a few days fernished the plain-
tiff with an account. The items were, attendances a various
occasions on what was termed Mr: Cookeabusiness, endgame
of them were really unique.
Mr. S. Woodbourn proved the above (acts.
There was so defence to the action.

The Lord Chief Justice ►aid, it seems to me a professional
man would 'epos heresies the plaintiff's care, say, that the
time which had elapsed presented me many delliculties, that it
vies useless to eapred mosey. For my own part, I have no
doubt respecting the transaction, and if the Jury think dee de-
readapt meant to cajole the plaintiff, sad that he took no steps
ie the business, their vesdict must be for the whole sum of
oas hundred and illy pared'.
Mr. Seerlett, who was Counsel for the plaintiff, said to save
his enrol from the gloms of havidg aa action breeght against
him by the defeedant for nay services which be might have per-
formed, he should 'unseen to take a verdict far IMO.
The Jury immediately nerd a verdict for 1001. damages.