The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-29 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Lord DENMAN and a
Common Jury.)
MATTHEWS V. SCOTT.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT (With whom were Mr. KELLY
and Mr. HENDERSON) stated the case. It was an action
brought by Richard Matthews, a wholesale paper manu-
facturer, carrying' on business in High-Holborn, against
Alexander Scott, a Writer to the Signet, in Edinburgh.
It appeared from the statement of Counsel that in the year
1833 Mr. Glindon, a printer, introduced to the plaintiff a
Captain White, who represented himself as the agent of
the defendant, and that he was about to get up a Company
and obtain subscriptions for building a harbour near Edin-
' burgh. Matthews was induced to take a hill for 501.
drawn by White, and accepted by Scott, for which he gave
goods and cash, and that bill was duly honoured. White
afterwards gave Matthews a bill for 601., accepted by
Scutt, for which he also got goods and cash, and the bill
was after some legal proceedings paid. Scott then pro-
ceeded by indictment against Matthews, his partner, and
White, for a conspiracy to cheat and defraud him of a
bill of exchange for 601. after it had been paid, and they
were obliged to put in bail. The prosecutor, Scott,
not having taken any steps to bring on the trial,
the defendants were obliged to press on the cause
when they ascertained that Scott had the proceed-
ings removed by certiorari into the Court of King's
Bench. All the proceedings were, therefore, to be
gone through again, but no notice of trial was given by
the prosecutor, it appearing to be his object to keep the
prosecution hanging over them. Upon the application of
Scott the trial was postponed, and a second application for
postponement was refused, the Lord Chief Justice observ-
ing that if an action for a malicious prosecution was insti-
tuted it would only increase the damages. The case at
g
length came on—the prosecutor, Scott, did not appear—
and the defendants were acquitted. He wool,;
proyp tq
the Jury, that there vvaa not the slightest rottoa for that

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—Witness
[ad bills to the amount of several hundred pounds discount-
ed by the plaintiffs in the most honourable way, having
dealt with them for upwards of 40 years. Captain White
got some grocery paper from Matthews on account of the
bill, and witness knows the grocer it was sold to. Under-
stood White got 301. in cash out of the 60/. bill. Scott
saw the proofs of the prospectuses about Trinity Harbour,
which witness was printing. Witness always understood
that the land upon which the harbour was to be built be-
longed to Mr. Scott.
William Matthews is in partnership with the plaintiff.
Richard Matthews. The last witness, Glindon, had been
doing business with the house for a very long period, and
had bills discounted in the way of business. White was
introduced to witness by Glindon as a very honourable
man engaged in building a new harbour. White gave a
bill for 501., accepted by Scott, stating that he wanted
some cash and goods, and gave a reference to the city,
which turned out to be satisfactory. White had the
goods and cash, and the bill was regularly paid.
At the end of January 1834, White came again, and
said he wanted goods, tendering an overdue bill,
accepted by Scott as a security. Witness took a bill
of White's for 601., and held also Scott's bill as a security.
When White had 401. worth of goods witness had a notico
that they were offered for sale in the city under their value,
and witness remonstrated with White about it. He then
had the balance (20/.) in cash. After White's bill was
dishonoured witness endeavoured to find him out, but
could not, and Scott, in consequence of some proceedings
taken by witness's attorney, called upon him, begged he
would stay proceedings, and that he would pay the moiety
on the following Tuesday. Witness never saw Scott
afterwards, and ascertained that he had left for Scotland.
Proceedings were subsequently taken, and witness reco-
vered the debt and costs.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The next
cause in the list is au action by witness against Scott for a
malicious prosecution. Does not believe that his brother
will be a witness for him. It was out of the last bill that
White had some grocer's paper. Scott's bill was about
four months over due. Did not observe whether it was
noted for non-payment or not.
Edvvard Alpress, a shopman in the plaintiff's service,
proved the delivery of the goods to White, which were
charged at a fair and reasonable price.
James Lane, solicitor, was a clerk to the plaintiff's
attorney when the indictment for conspiracy was pre-
ferred against Matthews. Separate Counsel were instructed
for White and Matthews, and witness believes, if White
did not pay his own expenses, that Matthews would
have done so. When Lord Denman refused the se-
cond application for postponing the trial, he said, " If
an action was brought for a malicious prosecution it would
only enhance the damages." Mr. Jones, who was Counsel
for the prosecutor, consented to a verdict for the defendants.
The affidavits used in postponing the trial should be filed
in the Marshal's-office.

Frederick B. Beaver, plaintiff's attorney, was examined
at great length relative to the proceedings instituted by and
against his clients, but nothing material was elicited.
James Passmore acted as the legal adviser of White.
When proceedings were taken against him for the 601. bill,
witness, in an interview with Scott, told him that he thought
it very unjust in Mr. Scott to take White into custody
and bring him away from Scotland, where he had ac-
tions pending against Scott. This conversation took place
at the Edinburgh Castle in the Strand, where White was
in custody. Scott said he had been well advised as to
the course he was taking. Witness told Scott that he
thought the matters pending between him and While
should be left to arbitration, and that it was unfair to join
respectable tradesmen such as the Messrs. Matthews, in
an indictment which must fall to the ground. Scott said
he did not intend to proceed against the Messrs. Matthews.
George Turner, clerk, to Mr. Thomas, a solicitor, took
instructions from Mr. Scott relative to the indictment pre-
ferred against the plaintiff.
Frederick B. Beaver re-examined—Mr. Matthew's ex-
penses in the indictment amounted to 1201. 4s. 9d., ex-
clusive of Captain 'White's expenses.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. I'llE5-
El-GEO, addressed the Jury for the defendant. He ad-
dressed them with considerable anxiety, for although it had
been frequently his fortune to be opposed to Mr. Scott,
and to thwart him to a certain degree in his proceedings re-
lative to the Trinity Harbour Bill, yet he felt bound to ad-
mit that Mr. Scott was a gentleman of undoubted integrity
and honour. Mr. Scott was that day opposed by fearful
odds—his mouth was shut, and he could not be called as a
witness, to show how he had paid that 601. to Captain
White, and which he was a second time compelled to pay.
The Learned Counsel proceed to comment in strong terms
upon the circumstance of Mr. Wm. Matthews, brother of the
plaintiff, who had an equal interest in the cause with his
brother, being put into the box and examined as a witness.
That in itself was sufficient to throw suspicion upon the
case ; and what made the matter still more suspicious, was
that the plaintiff had refrained from calling Capt. White,
whose evidence was most material to the case, and who
could have placed the transaction in its proper light. The
Learned Counsel had not concluded his address when our
reporter left.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.

SENIOR V. WILES.

they
m formerlygh, t
be c
Mr. PEMBERTON moved in this case on behalf of Messrs.
rLielody..odn, cbruesdiinteosrss oinf thßerluattnen-Astirre. Seniio
al-
lowed to attend before the Master, who had been directed
to take the usual accounts, for the purpose of watching the
proceedings, and showing the Master the amount of their
et,tlart, who
debts, and that the costs of their attendances before the
Master might be allowed. The Learned Counsel con-
tended there had been great delay in the taking of the ac-
counts, the decree having been obtained in July, 1835, and
the creditors having been kept out of their money up to
the present moment, although it was not pretended the
estate of the testator would not realise sufficient to pay every
creditor.
Mr. KINDERSLEY and Mr. ANDERDON resisted the mo-
tion, contending that due diligence had been used by the
gentleman who had the conduct of the cause, and that the
granting of the present motion would only increase the ex-
pence, without any benefit to the creditors of the estate
being obtained.
The MASTER of the ROLLS thought Messrs. Lloyd
were entitled to attend the proceedings in the Master's
office, and that they were also entitled to the costs of the
present application ; but he could not go so far as to make
an order before hand that the parties should have the costs '
of their attendance before the Master out of the estate.

mist harrassing prosecution—that the bill had come into
the hands of Matthews in the regulatr course of business—
and that full consideration was given for it. It would be
for the Jury, as men of business, to say what compensation
a respectable tradesman was entitled to for the expense, in-
convenience, and injury to his character which he had sus-
tained by that unfounded prosecution.
Arthur Corner, from the Crowin Oflice, prodUced the
original' bill of indictment against 'Wm. Matthews, Richard
Matthews, and Wm. White, for conspiring to cheat and
dcfi•aud the defendant of a certain bill of exchange for 60/.,
after same had been paid. Also the writ of certiorari to
remove the proceedings to the Court of King's Bench at
the instance of the prosecutor.
Charles Edwards produced a copy of the record of ac-
quittal of the Messrs. Matthews and White. Witness
inquired for affidavits used by the prosecutor in applyi
to postpone the trial, hut they were not filed.
William Glindon.-1 am a printer, carrying on business
in Rupert-street. The plaintiffs are wholesale stationers
in High Holborn. In December, 1833, I had some trans-
actions with Mr. White, who represented himself as a Cap-
tain in the East India Company, respecting some printing
about the Trinity Harbour Bili. He applied to me to in-
troduce him to a stationer,. and I recommended him to the
Messrs. Matthews. White mentioned Mr. Scott as hav-
ing something to do with the Trinity Harbour Bill, and
appeared to be acting as the agent of Mr. Scott. Scott
was represented to the Messrs. Matthews as residing in
Downing-street, and as being a gentleman of large pro-
perty. Witness saw a bill for 501. given by White to
Matthews for goods and cash. He printed to the amount
of 401. for White and Scott, who were both at his house
but never was paid more than 51. on account of it by Mat.
thews.