The Sun.
London, England, 1849-08-28 00:00:00

UNROLLING OF MR. FEARGUS

O'CONNOR.

We lately recommended the unrolling of Mr.
Feargus O'Connor, and are happy to have received
from a correspondent the subjoined illustration of how
it may be done, by a short and inexpensive process.
We trust that the information we thus publish may
be the means of obtaining justice for many poor hard-
working men who have been grossly defrauded by the
notorious Land Scheme.
NORTIIAMPTONB HIRE COUNTY COURT, AT NOR
TIIAMPTON.—G ILIBBINS V. O'CONNOR.—This was an
action brought by the plaintiff, a journeyman shoemaker
at Northampton, against the Member for Nottingham, to
recover the sum of 41 193.6 d., being the amount paid by
the plaintiff for two shares in the Land Scheme ori-
ginated by &fondant. Mr. Broke, of Northampton, the
plaintiff's attorney, relied upon the fact that the statute
for regulating joint stock companies prohibited the de-
fendant from receiving more than one-half per cent, on
fhe amount of the shares before complete registration;
that this company had been provisionally registered
under this Act; and that before complete registration
plaintiff had taken two shares, on which defendant had
received, through his aizeat at Northampton, the tuli
amount of 21. 103 per share; whereas under the Act he
was only entitled to receive) 3i To recover the dif-
ference, being 21. 93. 9d: on each share, the action was
brought.
" Mr. Roberts, of Manchester, appeared for defendant,
anti contended, aliongst -other grounds, that the whole
scheme was illegal; that the plaintiff, being a participator
in an illegal scheme, could not recover back his money.
" Mr. Becke argued that the receiving the money was
prohibited by the statute, not the pay jug; and that it
was quite clear that money peid'in contravention of the
provisions of an Act of Parliameat could be recovered
hack, unless the parties were both in pari delicto; that
it could not be said both were equally guilty of an in-
fraction of law in this case, as it was not illegal for the
plaintiff to pay, but only for the defendant to receive;
and cited many cases in support of this proposition.
" The case was fully heard, and argued at great length
before J. W. Wing, Esq., the judge of this court, in
,lay last. In June the judgment of the Court was de-
livered in favour of the plaintiff; and the defendant gave
notice of a motion fora new trial. This motion was
made by Mr. Roberts at the court held in July, when
the Learned G.•ntleman argued at great length that the
judgment was erroneous in law. The whole of the ar-
gument appears fully in the accompanying judgment,
which was delivered at the court held on Monday the
20th of August.
" ' In this case, Mr. Roberts, the advocate for the de-
fendant, has moved for a new trial, chiefly on the ground
that the principle of law on which this case was decided
(and hich is to be found in the notes to Smith's Lead-
C ,see, vol. 2, p. 298) is not borne out by the cases
there cited Mr. Roberts contended that money paid in
contravention of au Act of Parliament passed for the
protection of the class to which the payer belongs
against the class to which the receiver belongs, cannot
be recovered back unless there was also actual extortion,
fraud, or duress. This position, however, appears to me
untenable, for to say nothing of the great authority of
the late Mr. J. W. Smith, who laid down the rule almost
in the very words in which I stated it, it is obvious that
where as illegal payment has been obtained by extor •
Lion, fraud, or duress, the money may be recovered back
without reference to the object of the statute by which
the payment is made illegal. The point is. as Mr. Becke
correctly put it, Are the parties in pari delicto ? that is,
have they been equally guilty of an infringement of the
law? Without again going through the cases on which
the judgment was founded, and which were commented
on at great length at the hearing of this motion, I must
say that it appears to me that they clearly show that the
parties in such a case are not in pari delicto. Much re-
liance was plat, d on the stror:g language used by some
of the judges who tried the cases cited, in speaking of
the conduct of the several defendants. I am by no
means sure that if Lord Mansfield had tried the present
case he would not have used language equally strong. I
have desired, so far as possible, to consider this as a mere
question of laiv, but the defendant's advocate at the last
court laid much stress on the grandeur and benevolence
of the defendant's scheme, the perfect good faith with
which all the proceedings hail been conducted, and the
total absence of all pecuniary benefit either accrued or
to accrue to the defeedant, and he founded on these con-
siderations an assertion that the reason of the community
could not approve of &decision against the defendant.
" Now, I must say that my own reason quite ap-
ipnropvoei sn
to ofdefendant myself
boundat-
f thelaaw decisionto
come.to whichr
Ist,have
findfi.:lt
tempting to carry out this scheme in wilful defiance of
the provisions of a most wholesome statute passed with
express reference to such undertakings. That statute, j
though it prohibits the receipt of more than 10s. on each
100/. before complete registration, imposes no penalty on
those who violate this provision; so that, unless such an
action as the present can be maintained, this most salu-
tary and wise restriction on the too hasty proceedings of
speculators may be set at nought and disregarded with
carried out, would be pro'cluctive of advantage, and that
impunity. 2i. Admitting that the scheme, if legally
in all that relates to the expenditure of the moneys
subscribed there has been perfect good faith as between
the defendant and the subscribers, I must say that it ap-
pears to me that those who attempt in defiance of law to
carry out schemes, however grand and benevolent, are
bound (quite independently of all legal and political
considerations) to do so at their own risk alene.

" • The defendant was a person (compared with the
body of the subscribers) of station and intelligence,
largely trusted, and implicitly followed; he obtained
this sum of money, small, perhaps etso!utely, yet rela-
tively large from the plaintiff, an ignorant and unlettered
man, who was unaware, so far as it appears, that tho
payment was prohibited by law, and who expected, and
was justitied by the representations hell out to him in
expecting, that in return for his money he would obtain
a chanc at least, of acquiring a holding; his right and
interest in which the law would recognise and prof: et.
How diff-rent what he has really received is, I need not
again point out, nor will I do more than allude to the
multitude of difficulties and embarrassments which must
beset this scheme and all connected with it, until it is
placed on a footing recognised and sanctioned by the law
of the land. It appears to me that th::: Clllltnen sense of
the community wilt net disapprove of a decision by which
those who have attempted to carry out such schemes by
a systematic and deliberate violation of those laws, and
have thereby brought. the it.terests of others into
jeopardy, are made to feel the consequences of so doing.
" Two other points not raised at the trial, and only
now argued by consent, were material on behalf of the
defendant, but were not much pressed. Ist. That 7 and
8 Vict. c. 110, F. 25, a. 7, shows that more than 103. per
1001. may be received before complete registration ; but
I think there is an obvious effect to be given to the words
in question,prwithout construing them as doing away with
x
baton s. 23; and if possible an Act must
be in,
t s
rprhr ited so as to give effect to every part of it.
es
p
2d. That the money was received by &fen hint as plain-
tiff's agent, and laid out by him for the purp.tses for which
it was received ; but without entering into the question
whether it was so laid out, I think the defendant cannot
get rid of the liabilities which attach to him as promoter,
under the 7 and 8 Vict., c. 110, on this ground.
" The judgment, therefore, must stand, and I see no
reason for giving further time for the payment of the
debt and costs."'—Examiner.

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM.—Yester-
day the halt-yearly court ot the governors of this charity
was held at the London Tavern, Capt. Nelson in the
chair. From the report which was submitted by Mr.
R. Geddes it appeared that the resources of the institu-
tion had suffered in common with others having the like
charitable objects in view. The income during 1848
amounted to 5,3691., and by rigid economy on the part
of the committee the expenditure had fallen short of that
amount. There was at present the sum of 5,1611. 103,
invested in the funds in the names of the trustees, and
the building account was rapidly progressing. Several
very handsome donations and legacies had been received
during the past year. After the transaction of some
routine business, the meeting proceeded to the election
of ten boys and six girls, frem a list of 35 candidates
for admission into the asyiuw. The poll closed at three
o'clock, when the names of the successful candidates
were called over. A considerable number ot the boys
and girls of the asylum were in the room during the
proceedings, and attracted much attention by their neat
and orderly appearance.
THE CONVICT OrnsoN.—The murderer in Kirk-
dale Gaol, even now that the dread sentence of death
has been passed upon him, remains the same unconcerned
being as before. He is as cheerful as he has been at
any period since his committal ; and, restricted to the
prison diet, he eats heartily, and sleeps well. At his
request, the clothes that originally belonged to him
(those in which the murders were perpetrated) have
been obtained from Bridewell, and these he is per•
mitted to wear. With singular perversity he still main•
tains that he is innocent, and that the authorities have
got the wrong man. The day after condemnation he
dictated a letter to his father; but none of his family or I
relatives have been to see him from the day that he was
brought to prison up to the present time. Ile exhibits
no symptom of repentance, and it is thought that the
same obduracy will attend him to the last. There is a
strong but morbid desire on the part of many of the
public to see the prisoner, and with this object yester-
day morning several well dressed ladies and gentlemen
applied at the gate for permission to attend the church
in gaol. The application was of course refused. With
the same view,
several of the magistrates are beseiged
with applications for orders to see through Kirkdale
Gaol; but even if admission be obtained, none of the
visitors are allowed to seo the capital offender. The
execution,
which will take place in the usual course
in three weeks, will, without doubt, be attended by thou-
sands ; even yesterday, the lane near to the gaol was
thronged
by parties who appeared to have no other ob-
ject in view than to loiter and gaze upon the place
where tha scaffold will be erected.— Liverpool Albion,

FItEAKS or A FURIOUS BULLOCK.—Yesterday
afternoon one of a drove of oxen, being driven from
Smithfield to Carnaby market, when near the end of
Hatton-garden broke away from the herd, and made off
at a rapid pace up Holborn and down Gray's Inn-lane.
The beast solectqd the.footpath for its flight, greatly to
the alarm of the numerous pedestrians and shopkeepers,
knocking down several persons who were severely
bruised and contused; an immense crowd of boys and
men, accompanied by
d,,gs barking and yelinr. followed
.at his heels. In the King's-road he knocked down a
vendor of earthenware named Callum, residing in Agar-
town, St. Pancras, whom he severely gored, tossing the
poor fellow's
good?, which wore all destroyed. lie con-
tinued his flight through Brunswick-square and Judd•
street ; in his em-eor several other persons were knocked
down, and Mr. Tregoning, of Burton crescent, so sev, rely
injured that no hopes are enteftained of his recovery.
He pursued his flight to Tottenham-court-road, where
he was secured and lodged in Richards's slaughter-
house.