The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-13 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Justice
Erle and Justices Williams, Willes, and Byles.)

KENN EDY V. BROWN AND WIFE.

This was an action tried at the last Stafford as•
sizes before the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, when
the plaintiff, a barrister, claimed the sum of £20,000
for work done for the female defendant before her
marriage with the defendant, in respect of the
Swinfen estates, and upon an account stated, and
the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the
amount claimed.

Subaequently Mr. Macaulay, Q,C. (with whom
was Mr. Field), obtained a rule calling upon the
plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should not
be set aside, and a verdict entered for the defendant.

To-day Mr. Kennedy in person appeared to show
cause against the rule. He called the attention of
the Court to the rule which had been obtained call-
ing upon him to show cause why the verdict should
not be set aside and entered for the defendant, upon
the grounds—first, that the count relied on was of a
matter in respect of which there was no legal liabi-
lity ; secondly, that the count was concerning an al-
leged debt and contract which was contrary to law;
and, thirdly, that there was no debt upon an account
stated established by the plaintiff's evidence. 'The
rule further asked for a new trial, upon the ground
that .the verdict was against the weight of evidence;
and, secondly, that the judge had not left any other
question to the jury than whether they believed the
version given by the plaintiff or 'the defendant of
the alleged promise. His own impression was that
there were only two points raised at the trial, and
they were raised in this way. At the conclusion
of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Macaulay submitted that
there was no proof of an account stated, without
assigning any reason, and, thereupon, his lordship
said, " I give you leave to move, but I think that
the observation is deeper that that; I think that
there is no proof of a .contract ; that there was no
debt in reference to which a count could be stated."
He said he thought that a barrister's fee was an
honorarium ; that he was aware that there were
some modern cases in which it was laid down that
there might be a special contract between counsel
and client ; but he did not agree with them, and he
was of opinion that an honorarium was not recover-
able by law. He (Mr. Kennedy) was surprised to
find it stated in the newspapers that it was said
that the contract and debt were contrary to law,
nothing of the kind having been said, and the rule
could have been obtained on that ground only by
making misrepresentations to the Court, and he was
sorry to say that that was not the only misrepre-
sentation that had been made in this case. One of
the most prominent ones was that he had stated
that he was not only trying to recover £20,000,
but also to hold the deed of which there had been
,so much heard. He had never sued to recover
anything but the gift made by the female defen-
dant for services rendered, and if it had not been
sought to deprive him of it he should never
have taken any proceedings at all. He offered
at the trial to take a verdict for the amount
of the deed only, if they preferred it, but
there was no response. And he now said that if
their lordships were of opinion that in law he was
entitled to hold his verdict, and that as a gentle-
man he ought under the circumstances to accept
the value of the deed in satisfaction, he offered to let
the verdict be reduced to the value of the deed,
which was about £15,800. The only two questions
were, 'whether there was an account stated, and
whether a counsel could make a special contract
with his client ? Whilst he thought that the first
was a frivolous point, he did consider that a great
deal might be said as to the second one. It would
be necessary for him to go through the evidence
adduced at the trial, and to comment upon the
letters which were produced.
The Chief Justice said he was anxious to get Mr.
Kennedy's view of the law of the matter.
Mr. Kennedy replied the main question raised
was whether there was a contract between himself
and his client to remunerate him, not by fees, but in
another way ; and whether he made a promise in
respect thereof. He should contend that even if
there was no promise of remuneration in the first
instance, even if there was a request to act as her
counsel, and promise afterwards to remunerate him,
mentioning a specific sum, that entitled him to the
verdict which he obtained. He acted as her counsel,
was induced by her to make certain sacrifices, and
sustained certain losses for her benefit, in respect of
which a valid contract might be entered into and an
account stated thereon.

At this stage of the proceedings the Coutt rose,
and the arguments were adjourned until Saturday
next.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings in Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron Wilde
and Common Jury.)
WADHAM V. PHILIPS.-LIBEL.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a
grocer and cheesemonger at Hornscy, against the
defendant, who was a member of the firm of cheese-
merchants in Newgate-street, to recover compen-
sation in damages for a libel. The defendant pleaded
first, not guilty; and secondly, justification.
Mr. M. Lloyd was counsel for the plaintiff; Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Brown, for the defendant.

Mr. Lloyd, in opening the plaintiff's case, stated
that before the month of December last the plain-
tiff had purchased several quantities of butter and
cheese of the defendant's firm, and at that time he
owed them a suns of about £lO 55., which he pro-
mised to pay in a week. About a week after that
debt accrued the plaintiff became .a bankrupt, and
the libel complained of was the defendant's having
written outside an envelope addressed to the plain-
tiff that he had been obtaining goods by false pre-
tences. Mr. Lloyd said his client did not want
damages ; but if the defendant would retract the
allegation that m ould be all he should require.
The learned Judge said he thought the plaintiff
had misconstrued the meaning of the alleged libel.
He did not think that the defendant meant to im-
pute a criminal offence to the plaintiff, but that he
had not kept faith when he promised to pay in a
week.

Mr. Lloyd said if Mr. Hawkins would retract
any allegation, and say that the defendant did not
intend to impute a criminal offence, he would agree
to withdraw a juror.
Mr. Hawkins would not concur.
Ultimately the plaintiff withdrew a juror.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
BLACKBURNE V. BLACKBURNE, TRAFFORD, AND

PEPPERBINE.
This was a suit instituted by Frederick Black-
burne, a market gardener residing at Lincoln, for
a dissolution of marriage on the ground of his wife's
adultery with the co-respondents.
The respondent pleaded denial, and recriminated
the charge • and the co-respondents also pleaded
denial of the adultery, and connivance on the part
of the petitioner.
Dr. Spinks and Mr. Needham were counsel for
the petitioner; Mr. Pritchard appeared for the re-
spondent, but the co-respondents were not repre-
sented by counsel.
From the evidence it appeared that the parties
were married, in 1850, and cohabited at Lincoln
until 1853, during which time there was one issue
of the marriage, since deceased. In the latter year
the petitioner's suspicions were excited respecting
the fidelity of his wife, who had contracted intem-
perate habits, and he, in company with another
man, watched her, and discovered her in company
with Trafford, to whom he administered such severe
chastisement that he was obliged to obtain medical
assistance. They separated immediately after,
the October of 1853, and had not since 1Y

together. Trafford was also a market gardener,
and was nearly 60 years of age, while the respon-
dent was a young woman. Some time after the
discovery of her intimacy with Trafford she formed
an improper connexion with Pepperdine, who is in
business with his father, a timber merchant, living
in High-street, Lincoln. She afterwards went to
live with this person, by whom she had a family.
The respondent admitted to one of the witnesses
that she had been guilty of the offences attributed
to her by the petitioner.
Mr. Pritchard cross-examined the witnesses, but
adduced nothing material.
Sir C. Cresswell pronounced a decree nisi, but
reserved the question of costs.