The Sun.
London, England, 1808-07-07 00:00:00

BLEWETT 1). MARSDEtf.

This was an action upon a till of Exchange., and
to which theDefendanthad pleaded ! wo Sham Pleas :
a judgment recovered in the. Court of Excher
quer in Scotland ; next, a judgment recovered in the
Uuurt of Pted-Pouclre; in the Fair of St. Barthulo••
mew, at the last fair held there.

Mr. PARKE bad obtained a rule calling on the
Detendant'to spew cause why judgment should not
be signed against him, notwithstanding the 'above
Pleas, on the-ground that the last of them '.was a
inockery,•and an insulrto t,ne Court, the Court of
Pied Potdre being milonger in existence, and only
quoted as matter <lf ridicule. The Defendant had
-been served with a.1191e10 abgle by his Plea, or'
plead ixstanter.

.
The A',JoRNEY-LiENERAL • now sheaved cause
against the Rule, saying, " I am very sorry
flan this cam is brought before the •7 Court, be-
cause this ,is not subject on which 'we ought_ to
exercise our ingenuity ; at the same time one is too
apt to cast blame upon
.the attorney in such a cash
as this.—l think, considering.all things, it would be
very hard.--I eery much disapprove of the practice
of putting on Om Ctiurt the troublesome consider-
ation of different sorts of Pleas which have in them
no merit whatever. I know very well, however,
that without some' aid. Hof this' description, toduor
certain circumstances•-great 'hardships may fall on
e Defendant, which "lie 'may' hi some degree aveil
by means of a Shaul Plea.- But the present does
not appear to be a • case in which the Court is
balled upon to decide a difficult .point of law, as in
orne instances is the case by means of a Sham
'Plea. But, however ludicrous this Plea of Judg-
ment recovered in the Court of Pied Poudre may
appear, yet I do not see how to distinguish it
in principle from that of a Plea of Judgment in
the Court of Common Pleas, when that Plea is
false ; and therefore the question here really is,
whether the Court shall heueefOrward call for an
at to verify a dilatory Plea, as it does in the
case of a Plea in abatement ?- If not, I submit
that the Court will not interfere in this case. I
Shall speak really with a view to the future con- .
du& both, of the Bar and of Attornies.—l think
that if your Lordships should suffer this Rule to
be enlarged, I do not mean by' that to take ad-
-vantage by the time that would thereby be given,
foY no time can be gained by this Plea' in this case.
I do not like to argue On Such-a subject as this; but
•-whatever Pleas have been pleaded in this case, there
has- been a Motion. Rtr"th6 Defendant to abide by
. his plea, or plead another bye which he will abide,
-and he has abided- by it ; so that yotir Lordships
see that although' this is not such a plea as can be
called serious, yet the 'party is not placed by it in a
situation different from that in which he would have
• been if he had pleaded a judgment -recovered in the
Court of Common Pleas, or in any other well-
known Court or place."
Mr. Justice BA LEY.. " Is not this an a6lion upon
a Bill of Exchange ?"
Mr. ATToRNEy-GENERAL—" Yes."
Mr. Justice. BAILEY._ " Then the Plaintiff might
have had judgment in this term if this Plea • had not
been.pleaded, by referring it to the Master to com-
pute principal and interest upon the Bill of Ex-
change."
Mr. Justice GRoSE.--=.l( This arises from our prac-
tice not being lilAe Oat of the Common -Pleas." •
A.Trottark.Y-GlsSlcaat....—" The Role would
not apply to this case, because this is a single plea."
CHIEF JUSTICE.—" I -"cannot help thinking that
there is a great difference between the Court's not
inquiring very nicely into the truth of a plea of
judgment recovered; nor would it 'perhaps be too
severe on the party who availed himself of that mode
of pleading to gain time. The• Court would not in-
quire minutely into the fads ; but when a suitor of
the Court so impudently,puts on the face of his plea,
totally without foundation, *a falsehood, which ought,
instead of being called."« a ilea in his behalf," it
should be,'and, if we encourage thisTrattice, I sup-
- pose will be styled, a Sitar: Plea hi his behalf, which
would be disgracefal. to the Court, that should • be
resented by the Court: But'the Party who Shews a
respect for the Court,•and conducts' himself with de-
corum, will 'hot be regarded in the same measure.
I know, in point of fat% that these pleas of jUdg-
Anent recovered are pleaded and the Court has been
srimetime-puft to much thdonvenience" in deciding
minute points thud brOught before it by special pleas ;
cud the Court is not extreafiely nice in Illtrking
what is done amiss. But the :court must not be
made the vehicle of indecent jests ; and the Court
fins frequently been put to much trouble on account
of the Sham Pleas, as to the manner ofdisposingof
them, for theynow and then introduce the' greatest
nicety in pleading.'
The ATTORNEY GENERAL.--" No such incon-
venience can arise here, for no boy who has been in
an office tor-half a year would have any difficulty in
knowing how to reply t'O this plea." .
Curt)? insTlCE:,_,t
But these Sham Plea are
.
multiplied upon us ; ifid• I do not see why we

rhotilei que3tiohi of tiiec.t.ty which tla;tist
oc-
c a porkion of that .thrie of which we have out
too wtich.-

Mr. Justice LE BL ANC.—" Too much ingenuity
entnitnot be indulged in.the Irarning of a plea."
Mr. -ATTORNEY GE NER A•Le•--":111e application
`which is made on the part Of the Plaintiff is, that he
should:be at liberty to sign judgment ,as for want
of a plea:' •

CHIEF 4SIICE.--"Yes,l think that thil only way
in-coring the party to-a sense of the chierenCe between
the present acid a decent mode of pleading, is,to make
this plea pass fur nothing.".
Mr. Justice -La BLANC.—" It is, high time to cor-
re6t this prance."
Mr. Justice GROSE.—." All this is intended to ren-
der it difficult to'reply."
• CH 61, dtiSTICE.....-•" These. things give a great deal
-of trouble, and consume time, and I remember Mr.
Justice LAWRiNCE taking notice of this abusive prac-
tice. There really is 'an indecorum -iu this plea
which the. Court 'cannot suffer."

Rule absolute for judgment, notwithstanding this
plea.

OLIVER V. COMPTON.
'This was -an action to recover damages sustained
by the Plaintiff, the,sliip of the Defendant having
rundown the vessel of Xlaintiff. The Plaintiff re-
sides in England, the Defendant in Scotland, without
the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. The ap-
plication was brought by Mr. ADANs, jun. to shew
cause why the trial should not be deferred, the Captain
and the sail-maker of the Defendant's ship being
abroad in Jamaica, and being important witnes,es.
The ATTORNEY-GENErtAL resisted the rule. He
said that the Defendant had taken every means to
elude the purposes of justice. He supposed that he
could not be, brought within the authority of an
English Court; and, therefore, hp presumed to write
to the Plaintiffa letter of defiance, saying that he would
not pay-tid: for the injury his ship had occasioned,
threatening, that if an aCiioh Werebrought into a Court
of Scotland, he would set up a counter-claim ; and
'intimating' that the youngest of the parties, from
the delay incident to the proceedings, would ndt be
likely to outlive the ultimate determination. It was,
however, a little unlucky for the Defendant, that he
afterwards had a Ship which came within the, juris-
-dielion of the Court of Admiralty, and-this ship was
'very prudently attached by the Plaintiff. The date
of the letter of defiance was in o.etober, the attach-.
ment. was in December, and the'attion was brought
in January last. The,Learned Counsel said that his
Client bad already expended 14b1. in bringing his
Witnesses here, and he-hoped the rule for procras-
tination would not be granted, unless the Defendan't
would pay the charge of the subsistence of those wit-
nesses until' the time of trial. _
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—" No circumstances have
been shewn to satisfy the Court that there has been
any Wilful delay, and I see no objection to deter the
trial, if the Defendant will bring into Court the costs
already incurred, to be impounded, and to abide the
event of the trial."
Mr. ADAM—" The Defendant is solvent, and
-fully competent to answer any demand of this
nature."
Lord ELI ENBOROUGH—" Then there will be no
difliculzy in his-compliance with tlipterms on.which.
• the rule is granted."

THE KING V. FORRESTER.
In our report of this case, yesterday, we unin-
tentionally erred, by stating, that application for a
Critninal Information against George Forrester„Esq.
'Scc. at the of the Rev. Mr. Wardel, was granted.
The fact was, that the Court refused the Rule: re.
commending at the same time, that the parties should
apply to the Ecclesiastical Court.—This was the last
day of term.