The Sun.
London, England, 1836-11-04 00:00:00

••

de
entirely by the deposition upon interrogatories. 01 the
ineanind
ea n to
f himself,ilou
of
!nerd
d teexhc,e toh
revidence e of
acquaintance onr witness s. of To
parties, and that the plaintiff was a broken down
chant, and afterwards an accountant, and that he was a
matt
of intelligence ; but he proved nothing as to the facts that had
taken place, and therefore to the deposition alone of the _c
de-
fendant the Court would have to look for the term; and eff.e
of the contract. It was in substance this, that Ryan, who hado.
been represented as an active and intelligent person, should
proceed to Paris within one mend), he being told that r.
did not go within a month, his going would be totally uscles-,
and that he should then take such measures as he should deem
expedient, with a view of recovering the large sum of money
to which the defendant had claim ; and if he succeeded in re-
covering this money, he was to receive as a remuneration the
sum of 10,000/. There was no stipulation as to any remune-
ration whatever in the event of Ryan failing to recover tho
money, except that to which he would call atte;-,tion. la
answer to a question put to the defendant as to whether, sup-
posing a failure to take place through the defendant preventing;
the plaintiff from proceeding, whether the plaintiff should not
be entitled to his expenses out of pocket, and to a reason-
able remuneration for his trouble, to be settled by two disin-
terested individuals. In answer to this question, the de-
fendant admitted that such was the understanding between
them. The plaintiff did not proceed to Paris within the
month, but hedid not mention this circumstance as constituting'
a defence to the action, but merely as one of the facts of 0.10
case. No reason was given for this delay, but though the
arrangement took place in August, the plaintiff did not
proceed to Paris till December. The plaintiff having arrived
at Paris called upon the British Ambassador, to whom he bad
procured a letter from the Foreign-office in London, aiia
having seen the Ambassador he laid his case before him-
It was supposed that Count Stackpoole enjoyed the protection
of the French Government, and certainly the Ambassador
(Lord Stuart de flothsay) took upon himself to say thP.t in
!hat. country, such was the state of the administrati.on
tlr.t he was not prepared to deny that the influ,ince of
the Government might operate in the decision of a laintiff
concerning a large property of this description. Th e
upon this solicited the Ambassador to use his influence %vitt!,
Ilaron Pasquier, in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff had
several interviews with the Ambassador, and thew interviews
and conversations, which lasted from December to June, were all
the service that the plaintiff ever did for the defendant, except
that he introduced;him to an attorney of the name of Le Gros.
Six months after the plaintiff arrived at Paris he was put in
prison for a considerable amount, and he remained in prison till
after the defendant had, by 'other means, succeeded in !too"'
vering some part of the money to which he was entitled.
The Learned Counsel then stated the course which the de-
fendant had adopted to recover his property, in which he was
principally indebted for his success to the advice and assist-
ance of Monsieur Dupin, the President of the Chamber of
Deputies. The plaintiff had not been of the slightest assist-
ance to the defendant, but when the defendant, through otber
means, had recovered about 40,0001., the plaintiff brought an
action against him to recover on the agreement before Men-
tioned, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, giving
1,400/. damages. He submitted that under the eircurustanees
of the case, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover anything:
and that even if he were entitled to any thing, thr,se damage'
were enormously disproportionate and excessive,..,LA rule was
granted,

COURT OF REVIEW.-( rA'HIS DAY•)

IN TAR MATTER OF GEORGE I):VATT, A BANKRUPT.
Mr. KEAN, on behalf of the 14ankrupt, moved that a er,/
ditor named Frederick Walsh.
prosecute an enquiry ordered by the Commissioners on be
the petition mentioned show"
20th of June last, and case of default, that he might::
restrained from furtbra proceeding against the bankrupt. itt"
Walsh, in this cPse, was called upon to make proof of his de
under the of bankruptcy, and related to a bill of exchange'
The metier was ordered to be referred to the Commissioner,
and since then no step whatever was taken by Mr. Walsh.
Counsel on behalf of the creditor opposed the application:
which be supposed was made to obtain costs. He had an al?_
davit of his solicitor, stating, that on the Ist of October!".
called on the Commissioner, for the purpose of prosecute:,
the enquiry, but he was informed by a clerk in the office 0:1a;
the Commissioner had left town, and would not returv.i till
December.

The COURT thought the creditor might have
June till he ascertained that the Commiss;..gler was out 130
town. However, it did not appear that t', al. bankrupt Mau
enquiry as to the intention of Mr. Walsh ',.-0 prosecute the el'
qtury, nor did he give sufficient inthrittion of his present the
lineation. They would therefore rr
Jake no rule, and allow t'
question of costs to stand over.
not
The paper having been gon'4 through, and the parties , s
-waited fro
being prepared to go into
Twelve o'clock. '..neir cases, the Court adjourned