The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-24 00:00:00

It was impossible to predicate what was relative
and what was not when there was a conflict of
credit between two persons.
. .

Mr. Macaulay—lt- was important also in this I
way, that if the relation which Mr. Kennedy re-
presented existed, it was highly improbable that in
the very heyday of immoral intercourse between
them they should sit down upon a bench in the
Zoological Gardens, and that he should say,
" Patience, do you owe me £20,000 ?" and she
should say, " Yes ; I do." He said that they were
closely associated in the early part of the business,
and that she used to sit at a table writing for him as
amanuensis, and that on one occasion she said play-
fully, " If all other things fail, I can get my living
as your clerk ;" and he said, "No; you shall be my
sister." About six months after the date of this
incident, a letter from Mrs. Swinfen began, "airy
dear Charles,—I think that this is an improper
way, but as you insist upon it, as between brother
and sister, I assent to it." Mr. Kennedy asserted
in his libels that for two years they were living in
an immoral manner ; and after this she wrote to
him to say that she had contracted an engagement
of marriage, and continued, " For all this, I still
wish to remain your affectionate friend," and added,
" Now don't throw yourself into a violent passion."
It was impossible to convey to their lordships fully
the sort of passion which Mr. Kennedy could fall
into, but in one of his letters in reference to the
compromise he said that it had become necessary to
contend that the agreement was void for illegality,
that it must be shown that there was a conspiracy
between the judge and the counsel, and that wit-
nesses should be got to swear to the unfairness of
thejudge; that his mind was wound up to the most
savage ferocity against the delinquents, whom he
could utterly exterminate. There was another
letter, in which he said that she was perfidious in
contracting a marriage which would render his
deed void, but saying nothing about the promise of
X 20,000. A gentleman went to him from Mrs.
Swinfen with a sort of general authority, and said,
" Would £lO,OOO tempt you to part with the deed ?"
but Mr. Kennedy would not be tempted, and the
affair fell through. Soon after Mr. Kennedy pub-
lished handbills containing an advertisement of his
intended pamphlet making imputations upon Mrs.
Swinfen. The defendant swore most distinctly that
`at no time was there any mention made by Mr.
Kennedy of any remuneration to be paid to him,
but that he acted with a view to forward himself
in his profession, and from dislike to the persons
concerned on the other side, and that down to the
time this action was brought there was not a
syllable said about £20,000 or any specific
sum, but that the only time money was
mentioned was when he complained of the ruined
condition of a printing establishment with which
he was connected, and she asked him to accept
£2OO. With regard to the transaction of April,
1859, her version was that Mr. Kennedy spoke to
her about his being in some difficulty or distress,
and said that it would be a great thing for him if
she would execute a deed to enable him to raise
money, and that she might confide in him and de-
pend upon the deed being forthcoming. She said
that she had perfect confidence in him, and she con-
sented to execute the deed, and there was this allu-
sion to the circumstance in a letter of hers two or
three weeks afterwards, where she said, " I have '
proved that I have faith in you. I told you that in
order to save you I would die for you if necessary ;
that was not required, but what was required I
have done." She swore that this referred to her
confiding in his honour as to the deed to enable him
to raise money, and she was not cross-examined
upon that. Mr. Kennedy's version was that it had
reference to the £20,000. The learned counsel sub-
mitted that even if the evidence of the plaintiff
stood by itself, it did not lay the substratum for an
"account stated," which meant a statement of ac-
count in reference to some antecedent legal liabi-
lity. There were a number of cases which showed
that if the matter upon which an account stated
rested was one in reference to which an action would
not lie, then no action could be maintained upon
the account. The exception to this rule was stated
in the strongest way in "Cooking v. Ward"--" that
an account may be stated concerning a matter
where the plaintiff is without legal evidence in sup-
, port of his case," and not where the debt was not a
legal debt. There were the cases of " Porter v.
Cooper," 1 Cr. M. and R., 387, and "Le Mere v.
Elliott," C. H. and N., 656.
The Lord Chief Justice said it was not necessary
to state those cases, for the rule of law was suffi-
ciently clear for the purposes of the day.
Mr, Macaulay also referred to " Vetch v. Russell,"
3 Q. 8., which was an action by a physician for fees.
Mr Justice Willes thought that this had no ana-
logy to the present case. A counsel had exclusive
privilege of appearance in certain courts, and as
such a certain law was applicable to him. __ _

Mr. Macaulay—And every act of his would be
illegal if not expressly legalised, for he was a main-
tainer of the suits he was engaged in. In the 2 In-
stitute, 563, it was stated that the statute against
" maintenance " provided that no officer or other
person should take upon himself the business of
any suit ; but, added the author, "it may not be
understood hereby that any person is forbid to have
of pleaders or learned men in the law for their fee."
He submitted further that there was no evidence to
go to the jury of legal liability, and that there was
misdirection in this, that his lordship si►nply asked
the jury whether they believed the account given,
whereas he should have asked them whether they
were of opinion that the language used amounted to
an actual contract for payment, or was it simply the
language of a client promising a gift to counsel.
He, in addition, submitted that the verdict was
against the weight of evidence, for how could it be
supposed that the defendant intended to make #her-
self liable for £20,000 upon an account stated, as
well as for £20,000 upon the deed ?
Rule granted upon all the points.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, April 23.

The April adjourned quarter sessions commenced
this morning at the Court-house on Clerkenwell-
green.
Mr. P. D. Hadow, Mr. L. Mackinnon, and Mr.
J. F. Stanford qualified as magistrates by taking
the usual oaths.

The calendar contains the names of 83 prisoners
for trial, 14 of whom are charged with misdemea-
nor, and the others with felony.
The Assistant Judge delivered the charge to the
grand jury.
Samuel Johnson, 22, a soldier, was indicted for
stealing from the person of Henry Drummond
Wolff, a bag and other articles, the property of
Arthur Otway, and an umbrella, the property of
the said Henry Drummond Wolff. He pleaded
guilty.
Mr. Orridge, instructed by Mr. C, Richardson,
appeared for the prosecution.
The prosecutors were Mr: H. D. Wolff, secretary
to the Lord High Commissioner of the lonian
Islands, and Mr. A. Otway, a justice of the peace
for this county, and formerly M.P. for Staf-
ford. These gentlemen were in Langham-
place, near All Souls' Church, about twelve
at night on the 10th instant. Mr. Wolff was
carrying a bag, and Mr. Otway a valise. Prisoner
accosted them and% demanded some beer under a
threat. They pushed him away, and he struck them
with a stick and stole the bar, which M. Otway
was carrying, and also Mr.e'Wolff's bag and um-
brella. The prisoner wan captured by a policeman
in Burlington-gardens, and upon his person were
found some valuable rings.
Mr. Orridgo called the attention of the Court to
this circumstance, one ring being mounted with tur-
quoise, one a brilliant, a signet, and another not of
such value.

The learned Judge sentenced the prisoner to four
years' penal servitude, and directed a reward of £1
to be given to a cabman who was a witness in the
case, and the cause mainly of the prisoner's appre-
hension. His lordship said he thought, and so did
the gentlemen on the bench around him,`that the pub-
lic were indebted to Mr. Otway and Mr. Wolff for
the way in which they had with a high moral courage
brought such a dangerous character to justice.
Charles Dawson, 21, described as a sailor, and
Thomas Thompson, 28, a waterman, were indicted
for stealing a bale of silk, value £285, the property
of George Mark Spencer.
Mr. J. E. Palmer prosecuted; Mr. G. Tayler de-
fended Thompson ; the other prisoner was not de-
fended,

Two bales of silk, it appeared, were put on board
a barge called the Industry, to be delivered to the
Earl of Auckland steamer, for Rotterdam. They
were sent from Butell and Hayward's, Philpot-lane.
Robert Wilson said he lived at 2, James-street,
West India-road. On the 29th of March, at half-
past ten at night, he saw Thompson get into a
cab; there was another man inside. Knowing
Thompson, and seeing a bale of silk on the cab,
he said, " Tom, there's something wrong here,"
and stopped the cab. There was a third person in
the cab. Thompson got out of the cab, which was
he took the silk to the station-
mpson said it was Mr. Spencer's silk,
and had come out of his lighter. Dawson was
ono of the three. The cab by his direction, he
thenhou se d.rivTenho off;
having overtaken it, was driven to the station,
gaveand theT h
bale up,
who followed, said if he would
up, they would take it where they
got it from, the Custom-house-stairs. He refused,
and the prisoners were charged, and the case was
put in the hands of Dunnaway and Dyer of the H
division.

The prisoners were found guilty.
His lordship said interests of the deepest cha-
racter wore involved in such eases as these, and
those who were guilty of such offences must know
that the punishment of the law must au upon