The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-12 00:00:00

MINORITY-NO LS, 61.

Arkwrlght, G. Fr x, W. J. Prime, Richard
Armstrong, R. B. Gibson, Thomas M. Rohartes, T. J.
Bentinck, Lord 11. Harris, Richard Rornilly, Sir John
Ber,eley, 11. F. llastie, Archibald Seyruer, Henry Ker
Campbell, W. F. llayter, W. G. Matto, R. D.
Carter, J. B. Henry, Alexander Smith, J. B.
Chaplin, W. J. Heyworth, Lawrence Spooner. It.
Clerk Sir G. Hornby John Strickland, Sir G.
Cobden, R. Jones, Captain Thompson, Colonel
Colebrooke, Sir T. Kershaw, James Thoriiely, T.
Copeland, Alderman Lewisham, Vise. Villiers, Charles
Cubitt, William Littleton, E. R. Vivian, J. E.
Davie, Sir 11. Locke. Joseph Wahnsley, Sir 3'.
Denison, J. E. Lockhart, W. Wawn, J. T.
Divett, Edward Lushington, Charles Williams, John
Drunauond, Henry Ma heson, Colonel Will, ams, H.
Duncan, Viscount Maule, Fox Wodehouse, E.
Duncan, George Mu:lings, J. R. Wynn, C. W.
Du Pre, C. G. Newciegate, N.
Evans, John Palmer, Robert TELLES&
Floyer, John Parker, John Bright, John
Foley, J. U. Plumptre, J. P. Roebuck, J. A.
Forster, Mathew Power, Dr.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, July 10.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord Chief
Justice DENMAN an,, a Common Jury.)
COOPER V. BLOXAM.

Mr. Martin. Q.6:.-;;;T Mr.Bovill appeared for the
Plaintiff; and Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Ryland for the
defendant.

Mr Bovux, in the absence of Mr. Martin, stated the
case to the jury, and said this action was brought to re-
c,:w,ofpraia,s,,ninyaucertain penalties which the defendant had incurred
under the Stock J.,tibing Act, the 7th George IL, c. 8.
The Bth section of the Act imposed a penalty of 5001
yuactuallycpersonh s
tk"p:
knowing
possessed,
ws endg should
tahsneadl
tl ttahhneeyn
enactedoe cr stock
woaf
thatwnoh not
if
fah
ea
inhuye.
k•-r or agent should negotiate a contract for the sale
♦
ally possessed of the same, he should be liable ato pe-
nalty of 100 L for each offence. one half to go to
the Q
and the other half to the person who should sue feren
h
ame. The defendant was now sued for having actedta:
an agent in violation of ;his section of the Act. The de-
claration contained several counts, setting out several dis-
tinct transactions to a large amount, which the defendant
had negotiated for a person named the Rev. Robert
Cooper, the brother of the present plaintiff. The
defendant was not a member of the Stock Exchange, but
was one of a class of persons who were called " alliga-
tors." These persons exercised their vocation in the
vicinity of the Exchange, and, like alligators, they some-
times preyed upon their victims; but whether the de-
fendant was an " alligator" in this sense would be seen
by the evidence. The Rev. Robert Cooper was a clerk
in holy orders, and formerly held a curacy in Wiltshire,
but he had been completely ruined by the course into
which the defendant had led him. He had either paid
or given security to the defendant to the extent of
4,0001, and had given up his curacy. The friends of the
Rev. Mr. Cooper filed a bill in Chancery against the de-
fendant, the object of which was to make him disgorge
some of the money which he had recaved, and to stop
the circulation of certain bills, to the amount of 1,0001.,
which Mr. Cooper had accepted. In the bill in Chan-
cery the defendant was asked when, and from whom he
had purchased certain stuck, to which he had answered
that his answer would expose him to penalties under the
Stock Jo' bing Act. Ile could not, therefore, complain
hadtb
abte
be no
wasinstituted
b o
und by
o
othe
t friendsthe present o f oCooper,edings,
whowcome into the witness-box and state the whole of the facts.
hi
t

The Rev. Robert Cooper was then examined by Mr.
MARTIN—He said, in the year 1846 I became acquaiated
with the defendant. I was introduced to him by Mr.
Youngmichael. The defendant was an agent. Be had
the seat of an office at No 6, Spread Eagle-court, near
Threadneedle-street. The office belonged to Mr. West,
who at'erwards gave it up to Mr. Crook. Soon after I
was introduced to the defendant I had transactions with
him in buying and selling stock. That began in the year
1847. Claims were made from time to time for diffe-
rences, which he said I owed him. The result was, I
gave several bills of exchange in respect of the alleged
differences. (The bills of exchange were here called for
by the plaintiff, but not produced by the defendant.)
The amount of differences was about 1,5001. I paid the
defendant some amount in cash; that was about 4001.
In December. 1848, I was in London; I was not at that
time possessed of 60,0001. consols. I never had any con-
sols. I should say the defendant was aware of that. I
gave the order by word of mouth, in the office, I believe.
I ordered him to sell 60,000/. stuck. He left the office,
and was absent about ten minutes. On his return he
gave me the contract. This is the document. It is in
the defendant's handwriting. (The paper was then put
in and read as follows :
" Londen, Dec 29, 1848.
" Sold for the Rev. Robert C Koper 60,0001 Consols, at
881, for the 16th of December.
" WILLIAM BLOXAM.")
On the 24 of January I gave him an order to sell more
stock. The amount then was 20,000/. I had no Con-
sole- The defendant left the office, and on his return he
gave me a contract. This is it :—(The paper was then
put in and read, as follows:
" London, Jan. 1, 1849.
" Sold for the Rev. Robert Cooper 20,000/. Consols, at
88i, for the 16th of J vinery. " W. B.")
I had AO Console. It was a mere time bargain. I had
to pay the difference on the 16th. On the 23d of Ja-
nuary I gave the defendant an order to buy; that was in
his office, or somewhere about. He save me this paper
as the advice note of the buying.—(The bought note for
50.000/. wes here reld.) On the same day I gave him
directions to buy 80,000/. Consols. The defendant af-
terwards gave me a memorandum of the difference.—
(The memorandum was here put in and read, stating
the witness's loss to be 6901. 155.) N', transfer was made
of stock.

Cross-examined by Mr. WeTsoN-1 am in the Church
still. lam not doing duty. I bought a few railway
shares in the autumn of 1845. I bought ten in 1847.
I had nothing to do with the funds in 1846. I had to
do with railway shares. I never gained anything by
railway shares. I was introduced to the defendant by
Youngmichael. I received the balance when it was in
my favour. I have received money from Bloxam twice,
He resided at Bayswater, and had his seat at a broker's.
The defendant never told me he did the business through
West or Crook. The defendant is not a broker. I
wrote to him every day from the country. I never had
the prices of the day sent to me. I have written to de-
fendant o❑ a Sunday; perhaps between churches. No
broker's contract was handed in with the document on
the 16th of December, nor with the one in January or
February. I never saw a broker's contract. Edward
Peter Cooper, the plaintiff, is my brother. Ile used to
be a manufacturer in Wiltshire. I am not doing any-
thing now for my livelihood. I am living with my mother-
in law.
John Beaton, clerk in the Bank of England, was then
called, and proved that, by the direction of the ac-
countant, he had searched the bo ks of the Consols from
the year 1840 to the present time, and that neither Mr.
Cooper nor the defendant had had any during any part
of that period.
George Webb, the secretary of. the Stock Exchange,
was then called, and proved that the defendant was not,
and never had been, a member of that establishment.
Mr. MARTIN then proposed to put in the bill and
answer in the Court of Chancery, but not being fur-
nished with an examined copy, the evidence was objected
to and withdrawn.
Mr. WATSON then addressed the jury for the defen-
dant, and contendedthat there was no sufficient evidence
to show that the defendant knew that Mr. Cooper was
not possessed of the stock in question. The jury must
be satisfied that the defendant knew that fact before he
could he made liable to the penalties imposed by the Act.
Mr. Cooper himself admitted that he had paid the differ-
ence when it was in his favour, and now, when his
speculations had proved unsuccessful, he sought to make
the defendant answerable.

Lord DENaLtsf then summed up the evidence to the
Jury. His Lordship said that, in his opinion, there was
evidence in support of the two counts—the third and the
fourth; and there was also evidence that the defendant
was an agent within the meaning of the Aet of Par.
liatnent. His Lordship remarked, that he had never
before tried an action founded on this Act of
Parliament, and expected at first that there might be
some difficulty about it. It turned out, however, to
be a very simple thing. The parties had made a bar-
gain, and agreed to pay the difference; and the ques-
tion was, on the third and tourth otunts, whether the
defen 'ant had made the contract, as alleged, with the
knowledge that Mr. Cooper was not actually possessed
of the stock. No doubt it was a very improper proceed-
ing on the part of Mr. Cooper, who was a clergyman,
and anything but creditable to him ; but the simple
question now was, did the defendant know that Mr.
Cooper was not possessed of the stock ? In the case of
r-ctiving stolen goods, it was sufficient to convict the re-
ceiver if at the time of receiving the goods he had the
conviction that they bad been stolen, and they turned
out to have been so ; and so in this case, if the jury,
knowing that:,Mr. Cooper had no stock, shoal& believe
that the defendant was aware of that circumstance, he
might be convicted in these penalties. There was some
evidence that the defendant had knowledge of that fact,
for the witness had said, in answer to a question on the
subject, "I should say the defendant was aware of that."
The sufficiency of that evidence, however, was for the
jury,vi ho would judge from all the circumstances whether
the defendant must have known that Mr. Cooper was not
actually possessed of the stock the sale of which he (the
.lefendant) had negotiated.
The jury then found a verdict fee the plaintiff, which
was a,co.-iiinely entered in his favour, with a penalty of
1001. on the third count, and a penalty to the same amount
on too fourth count.
This was the last day of the sitting at nisi prius.
July 11.
The Court sat this morning at Westminster, for the
pu, pose of delivering judgment in several cases which
stood over for consideration.