The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-06 00:00:00

OBLIGATION OF RETAINERS.

The rest of the day was occupied in discussion whether Mr.
Basil Montague had taken a brief impoperly in a case against
which he had received a retainer. It was introduced to the
Court by Mr. Horne as the petition of Mr. Lloyd in the matter
of Glover, but his Lordship called upon him to shew statute
or common law to prove that he had a right to decide at all.
It was a very important question, whether the Lord Chancellor
had jurisdiction to compel the bar to do right, or to restrain
them from doing wrong. He was rather of opinion that it be-
longed to the twelve Judges. If the parties consented, he
might give his opinion as having had experience in those
matters.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, for Mr. Montague, wished to
wave every objection to his Lordship's jurisdiction.
The LORD CHANCELLOR.—If he should be asked his opi-
nion as John, Lord Eldon, he would give it. This was a case of
bankruptcy. He did not say the question might not come be-
fore him in another form. Every day he interfered in the case
of solicitors, and there might be cases to call •for interference in
the case of Counsel. He would hear the case as an individual,
but he would not regard it as a petition in bankruptcy.
Mr. HORNE then proceeded to state the circumstances set
forth in the petition, In the bankruptcy of Mr. Glover, Mr.
Lloyd was a creditor to a considerable amount. Mr. Lloyd
took the opinion of Mr. Montague in the matter, and gave him
a retainer. Mr. Montague attended 12 meetings of the Com-
missioners in the character of Counsel for 111 r. Lloyd, Oa the
22d of February last there was a meeting of the Commissidbers
upon the subject of the bankrupt's final examination. On the
20th preceding a retainer was given to Mr. Montague for the
bankrupt, and on the 21st a brief and fee. Mr. Lloyd having
a debt to prove against the bankrupt's estate, had not intended
to give a brief to Mr. Montague for the meeting of the Com-
missioners, but he complained that Mr. Montague took a brief
for the interest against which he had been contesting, and had
received a retainer.
Mr. PEPYS followed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said nothing could be clearer than
that there could be no objection to the second retainer. If a
Counsel had a retainer from one party and no brief, and if he
took a retainer and brief from the other, it was quite right, pro-
vided he gave notice to the party who gave him the first re-
tainer. It might be a question whether a notice must be
given of necessity. The general understanding was that there
must be a notice. His Lordship stated his own experience on
the Northern Circuit. It was. a floating idea that no retainer
bound beyond twelve months, but they of the north had not
been so sharp.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL disclaimed it for the Western
Circuit.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. TRESLOVE, and Mr.
MONTAG uE spoke on the other side at great length. The last
Gentleman mentioned, as an instance of the evils of retaining,
that the.late Lord Lonsdale had retained the whole northern
circuit against a Lake-poet (we believe) Mr. Wordsworth. It
was right to mention that the present Lord paid every farthing
—lO,OOOl.
Mr. HORNE replied.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, after having repeated all the
circumstances of the case, gave it as his clear opinion that no
blame could be attached to Mr. Montague. The necessity
of the notice depended very much on the nature of the case.
—lt appeared that Mr. Lloyd's attorney did in fact know
that a brief was given to Mr. Montague, and did not
himself mean to give him a brief. Mr. Reddish, the attor-
ney, acted upon an idea which many held, but it was an erro-
neous one. He had known the greatest evils occasioned by re-
tainers when great men in that Court oppressed little men.
The understanding and practice of.the bar were founded in rea-
son, and for the benefit of the public, not of the bar. During
forty-six years that he had been in the profession, this was the
first time the question was publicly discussed before any
Court. It was against all practice and principle that a retainer
should preclude counsel from taking a brief. he evil of such a
doctrine proved to demonstration that nothing could be worse,
whatever prima fade aspect the contrary practice had, and he ad-
mitted that there was something unpleasant in it. Here the re-
tainer had been in a matter of bankruptcy. By the way, the
poor bankrupt gave a larger fee than the rich creditor. It was
quite consistent to hold a retainer for the bankrupt, and for
Lloyd. The observations of Mr. Lee, attorney for the bank-
rupt, ought not to have prevented Mr. Reddish from commu-
nicating with Mr. Montague. There could be no obligation
of confidence in such a transaction. Mr. Montague, too, men-
tioned to the Commissioners at once the painful situation in
which he stood, and offered to refer the case then. No blame
whatever could be imputed.
Mr. Mowr.kuuE said lie did not ask costs.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH', Nov. 5.
THE KING V. SEATON.
This was an indictment for perjury alleged to have been
committed in an answer in Chancery, to a bill filed by Messrs.
Farquharson and Co. by the name of Barclay, Farquharson,
and Co. against the defendant, Mr. James Seaton. /There
were three assignments of perjury, upon which the indict-
ment was founded. 1. Whether the defendant, previous to
the year 1797, had had any transactions with the house of
Barclay, Farquharson, and Co. 2. Whether he had received
of them a sum of 12,200/. ; and 3. Whether he had received
a further sum of 4,000/. ? The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, who conducted-the prosecution,
abandoned the last two assignments, and said he should decline
ofFeriAg oitny evidence upon that part of the case, but would
confine himself to the first assignment. He then proceeded to
open the case at some length, stating that he should be able to
establish it in evidence. It seemed that Mr. Seaton had denied
that he had had any transactions in business with the house of
Barclay, Faiquharson, and Co. previously to the year 1797, but
had admitted that he had transactions of a specific nature sub-
sequently, which he had gone on to state.• Now he (the Solici-
tor-General) should be able to prove that the defendant had
had transactions to the amount of many thousands with them,
and that he had .actually executed a contract of partnership in
extensive speculations to South America in the year 179 G. He
understood, that the defence intended to be set up was, that the
defendant had misconceived the meaning of the interrogatory
to which his statement was an answer, and that he had sup-
posed it referred only to a partnership generally. The fact,
however, was, that the interrogatory referred to general deal-
ings ; and the best reply to this ground of defence was, that
the defendant himself had gone on to state what transactions he
had really been concerned in with the house of Barclay, Far-
quharson, and Co., subsequent to the period in question. He
put it to the Jury, therefore, whether it was possible for any
man, conversant with business as the defendant was, to mis-
conceive the object of the interrogatory which he had answered?
Upon the evidence he should lay before the Jury, he antici-
pated a verdict of guilty.
The Bill in Chancery upon the answer to which the perjury
was assigned was then put in. Upon reading the prayer and
the preliminary parts, it would be extremely difficult to show
in what way the interrogatories upon which the perjury was
assigned, because material to the subject of the Bill, inasmuch
as the object of it respected an estate which the defendant had
sold to the firm of Barclay, Farquharson, and Co. and therefore
it became material for the prosecutors to show in what way
the statement alleged to be false was pertinent and relevant
to the matter in issue, of which there was no intimation to be
collected from the previous parts of the Bill.
Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendant, took the objection, and
said he could not understand in what way the prosecutors pro-
posed to Make out the charge of perjury. The real fact was
that two bills had been filed in equity. The first contained
many interrogatories to which the def'endant's attention was not
particularly brought, and then the prosecutors filed an amend-
ed bill requiring more specific answers. The amended bill had
seen fully answered, and, therefore, there was no pretence for
charging the defendant with perjury in his answer to the first
bill, upon which this indictment was founded.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said lie would not stop the case merely
upon a suggestion that the matter upon which the assignment
fo: perjury was founded was irrelevant to the original cause;
but his Lordship would say this, that in all probability the
Jury, exercising a reasonable judgment, would not be likely to
i come to a conclusion upon such a case as this, that the defend-
ant vas guilty of wilful. and corrupt perjury.
Tie SOLICITOR=GENERAL said, that after such an intima-
tion from the Court, he could not think.of pressing the case any

farther, and, therefore,,he should offer no evidence= the Paft
of the prosecution. assige-
Mr. SCARLE T observed, that with respect to the two
ments of perjury which had been abandoned by the Pt°sBgi
tors, and which were in fact the most material, his client the
provided himself, at a great expence, with witnesses from
West Indies, who came prepared to spew, _ in the most seus-
facTtohrey
c%nrn.Fer,jtuhsaTt tlhceEretowldas
thnoep,Truertyer,ictehfaotr tashisthperocasecstelsoLl;
stood, they were bound to find the defendant not guilty.
dict—Not Guilty.

•
HIGH COUR T OF ADMIRALTY,S'. the
Nothing came on in Court to-tlay, save a few motions su
ordinary course. The Court sat for half an hour only.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, Nov 5",1) t.
Win. Richards was opposed by Mr. HEATH on behalf_
&tat;
Tobias and other creditors. The insolvent stated in his
_3L.
P., 1
nation that he was the Captain of a West Indianian, below
to'a Mr. Miller. In February, 1822, when about to sail 01,
West Indies, he took a chronometer and 3 gold ,watches,e4f,,,d„_
&c. from Mr. Tobias, with a view of disposing of them se";_;:o
They amounted to 1671. He also took a quantity of boots t
.17:;
another creditor, named Jessop, to the amount of 170/. or,
similar purpose, for which he gave Mr. Jessop a bill upo
ir e_i7;
employer for 801., which was accepted, but is not yet djele
In November, 1821, he called a meeting of his craiitera:the
then owed about 7001., to which amount he had rrtY
ope4eirs
West Indies, consisting of cash 1101., upwards of 2001. ig
wine ; 101. worth of tin ware ; 301. or 401. worth of slops,..
dozen Port wine; 100 gallons Geneva; and 34/. worth eorr:ift
He had left these things in the possession of a Mr. Edwarnsi,
the isle of St. Vincent; but upon his going out thiso YertalloThie
was informed that vermin had eaten the corks; the
was broken ; the geneva gone ; the slops destroyed; usaiog
ware lost; and part of the madeira leaked. Notwithstalis
this unsatisfactory account of his proilerty, he gave Mr. Mkodt
a fresh investment of property to the amount of 100 k., fla
him about two-thirds of the boots, and one of we the
watches. The other two watches (worth 301. each,) eslce
remainder of the boots, he gave to a girl of colour 01)1d
into the interior of the island to dispose of for him; no
he could not find this hawker on his coming awaY9-11e..0011
enter her in his schedule as his debtor, thinking the rligaes
she had lost. He did not know her name. She was sone op!
called Mary, sometimes Nancy, and sometimes other 11011,bea
She lived " where she could." No witness was present'
he gave her the articles ; he took no receipt from ber. for theti
nor did he tell her how much she was to sell them for. to
After the insolvent had underwent a long examinsitinl tater
this subject, and as to what furniture, &c., he had, an to the
Mr. Tobias and other of the opposing creditors depose" to the
circumstances under which he obtained credit, as well as ;01
apparent nature of his furniture, the case was ordered
_The:bile
over to the 18th inst. for the insolvent to amend his 5,.:1 pa'
with respect to the Mullatto hawker, and to bring forivfLittge
sons to prove whether or not the identical articles Of
seen by his creditors at his house are now forthcoming.