The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-12 00:00:00

The v,rdict was for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergean: Bosieas now moved for a rule to show
r.ause why that verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial had. He moved on the ground of insufficiency of
evidence. The witness who was called to prove the hand-
writing had only seen the defendant write cnce, and that
upside down, he being on the opposite side of the table.
There were other witnesses for the defendant, who stated
positively that the signature was not his, The bill pur-
ported to have been accepted in 7, Wilson-street, in 1837.
Now the defendant proved that this was not his place of
business. On this the Learned Judge, with great inge-
ouity, said that the defendant had not shown that he had
,ver seen the bill before, and that therefore, as the fact
of the acceptance at 7, Wilson-street, had not been
affirmed in the declaration, that the defendant could only
have known that such was the place given in the bill, by
having accepted it. The Learned Sergeant said,
Learned Judge had gone so far as to
state that .‘ without doubt" the defendant could never
have seen the bill before, unless he had accepted it, which
even Counsel would not have been so bold as to state.
The Lead CHIEF JUSTICE —I won't answer for that.
—(A laugh.)

Mr. S7rgeant Bostras—At all events, it was strange
that the bill should have lain by for two years and a half.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—Your theory would sup-
pose that you had seen the bill before, and taken a note of
its acceptance.

Mr. Sergeantßomeas—Yes, and there was an affidavit
that the bill had been before presented to, and refused be,
'he defendant's attorney, who had of course then had an
opportunity of observing it. :The Learned Sergeant
added that his client had bean prevented from swearing
that he had not accepted the bill only by his absence from
town, and that being necessary for obtaining the rule it
could only be asked conditionally till that question was
.iupplied.—Rule granted.

SEDUCTION.--TURPLY V.7PACKE,
This was an action for the seduction of the plaintiff's
daughter, whose family resided in Northamptonshire.
Mr. Sergeant GOULBURN applied on the part of the de-
fen,iant for a rule to change the venue from Middlesex
to Northamptonshire, on the ground that certain most vi-
rulent articles had aispeared upon the case in the metropo-
litan newspapers, calculated greatly to prejudice him in
the minds of all his acquaintances, and he was anxious to
disprove the charges against him in Northamptonshire where
all his witnesses resided. The Learned Sergeant cited a
case in which Lord Tenterden had in a similar instance
held the venue should be changed, because all the wit-
nesses lived at a distance ; great expense would he incurred
in bringing there up, and there was no counterbalancing
convenience. Lord Ellenborough also heH that great
convenience and substantial justics of the case should be
consulted.

The Loan CIITEF JusTtcp, said he thought that the
virulent articles • having appared in Middlesex papers,
and they, having been read in Northamptonshire, where
he was known, should he not find it his interest to be re-
moved out of that tainted atmosphere ?
Mr. Sergeant GOuLnuatv thought the prima facie case
was with the defendant, and that the plaintiffshould be called
on to disprove it.—Rule refused.

EXCHEQUER COURT-T HISjDAY

SANDERSON V. WESTLEE AND ANOTHER.
Mr. PLATT Pppeared to show cause against a Rule ob-
tained by Mr. Thesiger, to set aside a warrant of At.
wrney which had been signed by Miss Walters, one of the
defendants. From the affidavits upon which the rule had
been obtained it appeared that the defendant, WestleY,
who was brother-it-law of Miss Walters, wanted to raise
a loan of 400/., which the plaintiff advanced him upon the
security of the other defendant. Miss Walters became en-
titled to some money on coming of age, the settlements
for which were drawn by Walters and Reeves. On being
asked to sign a security for her brother-in-law, she wished
to have the papers drawn by th©m ; he said they would not
allow her to complete the transaction, and having perfect
confidence in her brother-in-law, she accompanied him to
the offices of Mr. Goddard, a solicitor, in Cheapside,
where a paper was read over to her, but she did not under-
stand it, and signed it as a security for her brother- in- lace,
Mr. Goddard did not explain the nature of the instrument,
and she snore that upon no occasion had he ever acted as
her attorney, nor was env one then present on her behalf.
In answer to this, he ( Mr. P.) was furnished with the
affidavit of the plaintiff, from which it appeared that the
4001. had been advanced; that he proposed that Walters
and Reeves should draw up the instruments, but the defen-
dant declined, and named Mr. Goddard, who acted as the
attorney for both defendants. He had also the ,7.ffidavit of
Nit-. Goddard corroborating Mr. Sanderson, and he fur-
ther swore that he informed her, that if the money were
not paid the plaintiff wo:dd have a right to enter up judg-
ment against her property.

. .
' Mr. -Baron PARKB—In this case there was but one
attorney acting for both plaintiff and defendant. It has
been held that that will not do. The defendants ought to
have their oe. n attorney.
Mr PLATT said it appeared from the affidavits that
Goddard prepared the instruments at the request of the
defendants, and was employed by them.
Mr. MESMER said it also appeared that Mr. Goddard
was the solicitor of the plaintiff on fotmer occasions. That
for that very businus the bill of costs was made out
against the plaintiff, and that when Walters and Reeves
applied to Goddard for an inspection of the security
signed by Miss Walters, he refused, and said he could not
do so until he saw the plaintiff his client. It further ap-
peared from the affidavit of Mr. Westley's father, that
Miss Walters was rather silly, and there had becn.no pro-
tection thrown around her by the attendance or presence
of Mr. Goddard.
The CotteT were of opinion that in this transaction Mr.
Goddard must be taken to have acted as the attorney
for the plaintiff, and rot for the defendants ; indeed there
was no pretence that he ever was the attorney of the de.
fondant Miss Walters. Wherever there was only one
attorney present at such transactions, it ought to appear
very clearly that he acied in no manner for the plaintiff,
otherwise the protection intended to he given by the Act
of Parliament would be entirely taken away. Here the
warrant of attorney was clearly bad, and must be void and
of no effect.—Rule made absolute.

- •
TILE CYDER SEASON.—'I he apple trees in
the numerous orchards round the town of Crediton have
tbrown'out their blossoms so thickly and luxuriantly, that, viewed
from tile surrounding hills, they present an appearance too
beautiful to be described. We hear of great complaints, how-
ever, by many farmers, whose orchards are less favourably situ-
ated, and have not yet recovered from the effect; of last year's
blight._.. Western Times.