The Sun.
London, England, 1839-12-03 00:00:00

___.
The Jury found for the plaintiff, 152/. 4s. 6d. with
nterest.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, D.Sc. 2.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius before the LORD CHIEF BARON
and a Special Jury.)
PARROT V. ITCHELLS.
This was an action brought to recover the sum of
308/., the balance of an attorney's bill of 42.5/.
Mr. JER VIS and Mr. V.:WILLiAms appeared for the
plaintiff, and proved the retainer given by the defendant
in a suit against him for tithes. He also proved the
work done, and the reasonableness of the charges.
When the defendant was served with the writ he said
he had parted with all his property, and all bis interest
in the farm to his sons, and he never would pay one
farthing of the costs—they might imprison the body,

but they could not the soul.
Mr. EVANS (with whom was Mr. Waleshy) said
there never was a more unjust action than this one
brought against an ignorant farmer—he meant ignorant
so far as the giving of a retainer went. The facts of
the case were these. In 1817 the then lay impropria-
tor of the parish of Presbury, in Cheshire, for the first
time within living memory, claimed tithes upon hay
and other produce. Of course the claim caused
great consternation, and a meeting of the owners
and occupiers of the land was held, a Com-
mittee was appointed and empowered to defend
all actions brought for tithes on hay against all of the
parties who became parties to the deed then made, and
all were to subscribe according to the interest in and
the extent of the land he occupied. A vast number
of actions were tried at the Chester Assizes—they were
brought up to the Exchequer Chamber, in error, and
afterwards it being determined to bring the case before
the House of Lords—two cases were selected to be
carried up—all the others to abide the event of those
—one of the selected cases was that of the
defendant,—but it was always understood that
no one was to be individually liable for the ex-
penses, but that they should be borne by the Com-
mittee. la 1831 the defendant was served with a writ
for tithes. He immediately went to the Committee,
and one of them accompanied him to the office of the
plaintiff, to whom he gave the writ. Mr. Parrot had
never been his solicitor ; in fact, he had no knowledge
of him but through the Committee. The plaintiff
was employed by them, and to them he ought
to look for his bill of costs. He had at
all times paid his subscript ion to the Com-
mittee. The Committee employed two other solici-
tors, besides Mr. Parrot, and he would prove that
the damages and costs in the action Trevor v. Itchells,
had been paid by the other attorney. If he made out
this case he hoped that his client would be saved from
ruin by the verdict of the Jury.
He called John Itchells, the son of the defendant,
who said he called upon the plaintiff to know who had
paid the 1161. which he had deducted from the bill
he had formerly delivered. Plaintiff said it had been
paid, and his father had better pay 1001.—he would
then fish in the little brooks, and see what money he
could get—perhaps the bill might be much reduced.
He further proved that the costs in Trevor and
Itchell had been paid by a Mr. Davenport, and put in
the deed made in 1817.