The Sun.
London, England, 1862-08-22 00:00:00

MR. EDWIN JAMES.

FRYER v. LORD 'WILTON.
At the Judges' Chambers, Sergeant's Inn, Lon-
don, on Tuesday, this case, which was an action
brought in the Court of Exchequer to recover
£2,000 on a guarantee given by Lord Wilton in
consideration of the plaintiff forbearing to take
proceedings for one day against Mr. Edwin James
as a debtor to him for £22,000, came on for hear-
ing. Two summonses had been obtained in refe-
rence to the trial, and a commission ordered to
examine Mr. Edwin James in America. Mr. H. F.
Lewis appeared as counsel for the plaintiff; and
a clerk from the office of Mr. Kobel on the
part of the defendant. The summons to show
cause why this cause should not be taken at
Liverpool, on the present circuit, was first heard.
Mr. F. H. Lewis said the plaintiff had been
delayed in his action against Lord 'Wilton on
the guarantee he had given for Mr. Edwin James
on his application for a Commission to examine Mr.
Edwin James in America, and afterwards abandon..
ing the same, so that now it was important that
the case should be heard on circuit, without waiting
over the long vacation, and it could be heard at the
assizes at Liverpool.—Mr. Justice Wiles said he
did not see how he could grant the application._
The Clerk who attended for the defendant remarked
that it would be contrary to the act of Parliament.
—Mr. F. H. Lewis observed that the action would
heve been tried at the present sittings at Guild-
ford, but the defendant, who had pleaded fraud
land conspiracy on the part of the plaintiff with
Mr. Edwin James, had obtained the Commission
he had mentioned, and then the venue changed
into Lancashire, and he thought the learned
judge at Liverpool would not mind losing a little of
his vacation trying another case.—Mr. Justice
Wiles thought his learned brother on the circuit
would have no vacation at all, seeing that there
were 156 cases entered for Liverpool, of which 44
were special juries. He could not grant the appli-
cation, but a count might be added for interest on
the guarantee. The second summons was for an
order to rescind the commission ordered to examine
aasukdhtihsaltotrhde-
Mr. Edwin James in America.—Mr. F. H. Lewis
said as the other side had given notice to abandon
the commission, even after a commissioner was
Oneen's counsel to
rescinded,
had t o
ready
s F,
ip
thatto sailthe orderf or N New
might York, be
take an account between the parties, the action being
His lordship was n ot di
on a guarantee.
.disposed togrant
matter might be referred to a
the applications, seeing that Lord Wilton had'
pleaded fraud and conspiracy.—Mr. F. H. Lewis
remarked that the abandonment of the commission
was, in effect, the abandonment of the defence. Mr.
Edwin James was put forth as
a necessary witness
for Lord Wilton, and, in fact,• his own attorney,
Mr. Knobel, was defending
Wilton.—The Clerk produced to his lordship some
documents to show that
when the commission was
obtained it Was intended Edwin
to examine Mr.
he
James; subsequent information
had induced
.t
abandonment f e
0 t ecommission —Mr Justice Wiles
said he couldnottake • . *
upon himself to say there would
be no defence, nor did he see any immediate necessity
to dispose of the action at once.—Mr. F. H. Lewis
thought the
easiest
way would be to refer the case
to a Queen's counsel.—Mr. Justice Willes asked the
other side P'
what objection there was to a reference
The Clerk said he had no instructions ; adding
that,
7. under the act, the cause could not be tried at
Liverpool. Mr. Justice Willes : lam not on that.
I may say I decided it a century ago. (A laugh.)
Nit.. F. H. Lewis asked the learned Judge to refer
the case, so as to save the expense of an application
for that specific purpose.—His Lordship declined.
to interfere. The case might well wait until after
the vacation,