The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-02 00:00:00

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

JUDGMENT.-LEWIS L. COLMER.

His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS gave judgment
this morning in this important case, which it will he re-
collected has occupied the Court upwards of seven days in
argument, and all the facts of whieh have been in detail
before the public.
'the plaintiff, Mr. James Lewis, ivas the 64 brother of
ttn intestate of the name of William LangdOtt, who died
possesed of large personal property, exceeding 1,000,000/.
Mr. Langdon left a widow, and also the defendant,
Wm. Tobias Langton, about whose legitimacy a question
was raised, and which was, in truth, the question which
had originated the former suit. The defendants were,
Mt. Tobias Langdon, Robert Colmer, and Thomas Samp-
son. 11r. Colmer was a special pleader, of considerable
eminence; Thomas Sampson was a Doctor of Divinity, a
Magistrate of three counties, and a gentleman of high
character and reputation. The bill was filed for the
purpose of avoiding an agreement, by which the
plaintiff agreed to release all his right in the property of
the intestate, as his half-brother, upon condition of re-
ceiving 20,000/. The bill charged that the agreement
was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation on the part
of Colmer and Sampson, who, as the bill alleged, ope-
rated together for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to
execute the agreement. It was, however, to be col-
lected from the bill, though it was not distinctly
stated, that, supposing there was no fraudulent mis•
representation in the case, yet that Colmer had taken upon
himself to be the adviser of the plaintiff, William Lewis,
with respect to the propriety of the compromise, and the
terms of it, and that in that character he had entirely
failed in his duty, that lie had consulted the interests of
Mr. Tubias Langdon atone. The same charge was also
made against Dr. Sampson, who it was stated had favoured
the interests of Mr. T. Langdon on account of his being
about to marry his daughter. Mr. Conner was not only
a defendant, but had been examined as a witness, and ob-
jections had been taken to his testimony because he was a
defendant, for the purpose of b .ing liable for the costs of
the suit, if the allegations of the bill were made out
against him. It was insisted by Mr. Tobias Langdon that
he was made a party, not in that respect, but in order to
prevent his being a witness in the cause, and it was the
duty of the Court, therefore, to examine what the charges
against Mr. Colmer were, and then to see whether his
evidence was not admissible. Mr. Calmer being made a
party for the purpose of being liable for the costs of the
suit, his answer was evidence for himself. The charge
against him was, co-operating in fraud and misrepresenta-
tion with Dr. Sampson, who, it was alleged, was an in-
timate friend of his, to induce the plaintiff to exe-
cute the agreement, and the bill further alleged, that
there was some secret and underhand agreement by
which Dr. Sampson and Mr. Gilmer were to share
in the profit which Mr. Tobias Langdon would re-
ceive from this agreement. Mr. Colmer in his answer
stated, and his Honour would read the important pas-
sage in that answer in detail, because it would be neces-
sary to compare it with the evidence of Mr. Jenkins,
that the effect of the answer was, that Dr. Sampson was
not his intimate friend ; that some years ago a son
of Dr. Sampson was his pupil, that he had no visiting
acquaintance with him, knew nothing of his family, and
that he did not even know the fact that he had a daughter
till the bill was filed. That Dr. Sampson had come to
him and represented the death of Mr. Langdon, whom he
had never before heard of, giving him an account of the
family; that Lewis had placed an avowed illegitimate
son of his with Dr. Sampson as a pupil ; that
a question had arisen as to that illegitimacy ; that
Mr. Lewis, the half brother to the intestate, was
extremely kindly disposed towards his nephew ; that
he was determined, whether legitimate or not, that he
should have the whole property that did not belong to the
widow, except 20,000/. ; and that he desired to execute
some instrument by which that might be secured. That he
wished to consult Mr. Colman upon it. That a meeting was
held for this purpose on the 20th of February, and upon the
statement of Lewis that he wished to settle the whole
property of Mr. Tobias Langdon, with the exception of
20,000/., Mr. Colmer agreed to prepare an agreement
for that purpose. Mr. Colmer also denied the charge of
taking upon himself the office of adviser to the plaintiff,
stating that he came to him determined to execute the
agreement, at which time nothing was said as to
the illegitimacy of Mr. Tobias Langdon. His Honour
then read different parts of Mr. Colmer's answer at consi-
derable length, observing that if the statements contained
in it were true, it was plain that the agreement had not
been induced by fraud and misrepresentation on his part.
His Honour then went at considerable length into the evi-
dence of Mrs, Jenkins, the daughter of the plaintiff, the
only person present at the transaction, who expressly
contradicted Mr. Colmer's representations with re-
spect to the legitimacy, and in other particulars; Mrs.
Jenkins's evidence, however, was contradicted by Mr.
Roberts, a gentleman whose testimony could not be quar-
relled with ; under ouch circumstances, and considering
that Mrs. Jenkins could not altogether be considered a
disinterested witness, his Honour felt himself bound to de.
dare that the testimony of Mr. Colmer was admissible ;
and if it was to be received as true, which he was of opi-
nion that it was, it was clear the plaintiffwas not induced by
Colmer's representation to enter into the agreement, but that
it was the result of his own predetermined purpose. With
respect to Dr. Sampson, if Mr. Colmer's evidence stood
uncontradicted, which it did, it was impossible that the
plaintiff could have entered into the agreement through
the representations of Dr. Sampson, because he had, ac-
cording to that evidence, entered into it of his own free will,
and without any representations at all. In the opinion of
his Honour, Dr. Sampson's evidence was as well entitled to
be received as that of Mr. Colmer, and such being the case
all doubt was entirely excluded, and the only course left
for the Court was the dismissal of the bill with costs.—
The charge in the bill that Mr. Colmer and Dr. Sampson
were by a secret and under-hand agreement to share in
the profit which Mr. T. Langdon was to receive under the
agreement, was not only wholly unsupported, but had not a
colour of probability ; another charge on the bill was that
Dr. Sampson had acted most dishonourably in promoting
an alliance between one of the defendants and his daughter ;
if even that change had been true, in the opinion of the
Court it was perfectly irrelevant to the present case, and
ought to have been introduced, the single question being
the validity of the agreement. His Honour, in conclusion,

~ .
felt it his duty to say it would be most unjust to Dr.
Sampson and Mr. Colman, if they should suffer the least
imputation on their character and conduct from being im-
properly dragged into this suit:—Bill dismissed with costs.