The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Arias 19.
ROPER V. PHILLIPS.

This was an action against Mr. 11. Phillips, the
auctioneer, of New Bond-street, to recover damages
fcr maliciously suing out a commission of bankrupt
against the plaintiff, Major Roper.
Mr. F. POLLOCK opened the case. The principal
facts stated were these :—The plaintiff, who had
been in the army, and retired some years ago on
half-pay, became acquainted with the defendant in
1815, and was in the habit for several years of at-
tending his sales, in New Bond-street. Being the
agent for the Margravine of Anspach, the plaintiff
introduced to the defendant, from time to time,busi-
ness connected with her affairs, and also introduced
to him a variety of sales of property belonging to
persons with :whom be (the plaintiff) was ac-
quainted. In this way a great intimacy arose be-
tween the parties. The plaintiff being in the habit
of buying and selling various articles at the de-
fendant's auction-room, an account was opened be,
tsveen them; and, as alleged by the defendant, at
the beginning of 1828, there was a considerable
balance due from the plaintiff to him. The plaintiff
at that time resided with his wife and two daughters,
in Manchester-street, Manchester-square, and moved
in very respectable society, enjoying the friendship
of many person of high condition, In May, 1828,
he had the misfortune to be attacked by apoplexy,
accompanied by palsy, affecting his right side and
his ,peech. Having remained in this state for about
a month, his medical men recommended him to go
to the sea-side. He accordingly in July left home, ac-
companied by his two daughters and a Capt. Dance,
who had since married one of them, and proceeded to
Rochester on his way to Dover, from whence in a day
' or two he embarked for Calais, where he had an aged
father and a sister residing. His departure was tin-
known to the defendant at the time, but in a short
time afterwards he learnt that he was gone. Mrs.
Roper having been left in London with one or two
of their servants, proposed letting the house in Man-
chester-street furnished ; but the defendant, on being
consulted on the subject, recommended that she
should take a smaller house and dispose of the fur.
rriture. Mrs. Roper did not immediately yield to the
suggestion, and the defendant soon afterwards
brought in an account between him and the plain-
tiff, showing a balance to be due from the plaintiff to
the amount of between 1,7001. and 1,8001. Mrs.
Roper was much surprised at this, not being aware
that her husband owed the defendant any thing. Ul-
timately the furniture was sold, by order of Mrs.
Roper, at Mr. Squibb's auction4ooms. i The de-
fendant, irritated by what had occurred, went down
to Calais with his account, and insisted on an ime
mediate adjustment ; threatening the plaintiff that
if he did not execute a bond and warrant of attorney
as u security for the balance which he alleged to be
due from him, he would take out a commission of
bankrupt against him. The plaintiff having refused
proposed, the
struck a docket,
the defendant, im-
Itioiesdei
Itttticei
yo
nt the
i s termsrurr i
and caused a commission of bankrupt to be issued,
This was in August, 1828. The plaintiff brought
an action against the defendant,for trying the validity
et
of the ;commission ; that action was tried in this
Court, and the Jury being satisfied that the plaintiff
had not in any way become amenable to the bank-
rupt law, found a verdict in his favour, the amount
of damages being submitted to arbitration. Since
then the commission had been superseded by order
of the Lord Chancellor. The present action was
brought to recover a compensation in damages from
the defendant, for having sued out the commission
without reasonable or probable cause.

Some doubt being raised as to the plaintiff being
entitled to the appellation of " Major,"
Mr. PQLLOCK asked Mr. Pettigrew whether he
had not been received in the very highest circles ac
Major Roper, and whether the Duke of Sussex, at
whose table he had dined, in company with many
distinguished individuals, and by whom he bad been
visited at his house in Manchester-street, had not re-
cognized that title as belonging to him.
The witness replied in the affirmative.

Mr. BROUGHAM (with whom were Mr. Camp-
bell and Mr. Barstow) addressed the Jury for the
defendant, and proposed to make out in evidence
the three points necessary to sustain the commission,
viz., a petitioning creditor's debt, a trading, and act
of bankruptcy. The act of bankruptcy, he sub-
mitted, was already proved by the plaintiff's own
evidence, it being clear, from the facts stated, that
the going to Calais was a co►►trivance fer the pur-
pose of evading the payment of the defendant's just
debt. The Learned Counsel commented at great
length ON the evidence.

Evidence was then given of the plaintiff's having
taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act in
1816. In his schedule he was described as a captain
on half-pay, in the 4th Regiment of Foot, and he
stated that he was possessed of " no estate or ef-
fects." In 1821 he again applied to be discharged,
❑nder the Insolvent Act. His schedule, on that oc-
casion, contained debts to the amount of 4,1241.;
and be stated that his assets, at the time he was com-
mitted to prison, amounted to 261., which sum he
bad expended towards the maintenance of himself
and family, and that he was possessed of only a few
articles of wearing apparel, and some spoons, two
of which were in pawn.

Several of the creditors named in this last schedule
were called, to prove that no part of the debts had
been paid.
Several witnesses were then called to prove a
trading, and it was attempted to be made out that

the plaintiff had bought and sold cattle with a view
to making a profit.
Mr. Ball, the defendant's clerk, first knew the
plaintiff in 1815. In February in that year the de-
fendant sold a picture for him. The plaintiff, after
that time, constantly attended the sales at the de-
fendant's rooms in New Bond-street. A catalogue
of every sale was regularly sent to him. He both
bought and sold at the defendant's rooms. He
bought to a very large amount, and he sold a great
many articles. The defendant did business for the
Margravine, through the agency of the plaintiff.
There was a regular account kept with the plaintiff.
The Jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found
for the plaintiff—Damages, 600/.