The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-20 00:00:00

LAW IN'frMLIGENCE.

COURT OF JUNO'S 11ENC11, DEc. 19.
GRIM. CON.
GOLDING ih BOOTY.
_

This was an action brought by the pleintiff, late landlord'of
ae Red House Tavern, Thames-street, to recover from the de•••
lend/int, who is a linen.draper in Fore-street, Finsbury-square,
compensation in damages for an injury sustained by. the plain-
tiff, in consequence of the defendant's having had criminal con-
versation with Frances Golding, the wife of the plaintiff:
Mr. SCAULEvr, Mr. GoemeiG, and Mr. POLLOCK, con-
ducted the case for the plaintiff; Mr. Soetetron-Geemitet.
and Mr. C. Nitta.' es conducted the case for the defendant:
Mr. Scenry!• having stated the faetstif the case, which he
hoped he should be able to prove by'evidence, observed that it
was unnecessary for him to occupy the time of the Jury in com-
menting upon the heinousness of an injury of' this kind. Ile was
always averse from indulging in common-place expressions in
cases of this kind, because he was satisfied, that any thing which
ire could say would not enable a Jury of Englishmen, of men
of business, and of men.who enjoyed and valued domestic com-
flirts, to appreciate more 'justly than they were now capable of
appreciating, the injury sustained by the plaintiff'. But he must
say that in this case, the injury inflicted by the defendant was
aggravated, inasmuch as he being the assignee of the laintiff,
and, therefore, having unrestrained access to the plaintiff's
house, applied the means ehus afforded him by the plaintiff's
miefottunes to the basest- of purposes—the seduction of the
wife of a man of whom he always profeesed himself the friend.
The registry of the marriage between the plaintiff and his
wife, at Bury St. ledmond'e in July 1817, having been put in
and read, the following witnesses were called.
William Golding--I am brother of the plaintiff; and was
present at his marriage it: 1817 with Miss Frances Lawrence.
Before his marriage he was acquainted with her about three
or four years. Ile was a traveller in the spirit line; but after
his marriage he lived in Whitechapehroad, and afterwards in
Philpot-lane, where he carried on business as a spirit-mer-
chant and liop-dealer. I yisited the plaintiff and his wife.
They have three children, find lived, as fir as I could see, very
comfortably.
Cross-examined—l-know it Mr. Boutier, who lives at Tps-
wich ; he married my sister. The defendant and Mrs. Gold-
ing arc first cousins The defendant's sister lived with him in
London. My' business confines me very much at Bury St.
Edmonds, and I had not ninny opportunities of seeing the de-
fendant and his wife in Londou.
Re-exemined—The defendant is a linen-draper, residing in
Fore-street, Finsbury-square.
Mr. Cooke—l am a surgeon and accoucheur, and I attended
Mrs. 0. in her accouchements. She was first confined in April
1819, and a second time in -May 11121. frequently visited the
plaintiff and his wife : they appeared to live happily together,
and 1 thought her much attached to her husband. I remem-
ber the bankruptcy of the plaintiff; after it the plaintiff went
to live at Folkes'-building, Mile-end-road, where I went to see
the plaintiff's child in August 1821.
Ann Cooke—l know-the plaintiff' and his-wife; I lived with
them as servant in Philpot-lane for fifteen months. The de-
fendant:lnd his -sister used to visit the-family. Mr. and Mrs.
Golding always appeared to live heppily together.
. Mary Daly-1 know the plaintiff and his wife; I lived as ser.
vent with them at Folkem-buildings, Clevelandestreet, Mile-end-
road, for three weeks in the summer of 11121; I did not sleep
in the house ' . a gentleman- whom -I heard say his name was:
Booty, called and asked' for Mrs. Golding; he was shown into
the parlour by the landlitly of the house. Alrs.•o. was then,
in her bed-room suckling her child ;• the' house consisted of the
kitchen, parlour. and bed-room ; the bed-room was over the par-
lour. :Airs. Codling went down stairs, called me to take the
baby,-and told me to keep it quiet until she should call to me.
I took the baby at the parlour door and went inm the garden.
The p trlour window 'looked into the garden. The blinds of
the parlour window were drawn down. I heard Mrs. Golding
and the gentleman go.ttp stairs to the bed-room, and the blind
of the bed-room window was then drawn down. I remained
in the garden about half an hour, and T was then called
by
Mr.- G. who was at 'the street-door. The gentleman was at
that time going down the steps from the door. I was desired
to go up stairs and set the room to rights. The witness here
deposed that the bed was much disturbed, anti the loom alto
gether in great confusion. Airs. (folding came -up stairs and
put the bed to rights and I took the child. On that morning
Mr. (folding event about eight o'clock, and the gentleman came
about eleven o'clock. I used to be at Mrs. (e's sometimes for
one hour in the day, and sometimes four or five hours.
Cross-examinee-el have never seen the gentleman -Wince. I
heard him say his same was Booty. I never told to any body,
exceptito my mother, what I have told to-day, until Mr.
(guid-
ing brought me the subpama. I told my mother what I saw
directly after 1 went home. lam turned of 13 years of age.
The houses at the back of Folkes-buildinge are not very near
the house in which the elaintiff lived ; I die not see whether the
.gentleman had a hook or paper in his bane I was recom-
mended to Mrs. Golding by Mrs. Taylor of .Vile-end-road.
Wm. King, porter at the King's Head Inn, at Ipswich—l
remember having seen Alr. Booty at Ipswich in March last. •
Alar,YeSmith—l lived „as servant with Air. end Airs. G. at
Ipswich. went to live with them in August MI Air. 0.
frequently went to I kndon, and sometimes was absent for a fort.
night. I know the defendant ; he came twice to Mr. Gold-
ing's while I lived there. I remember Mr. Golding coming
from London on a Saturday, and on the following Tuesday
(nth March) he set out for London, and said he would return
on the Thursday following. About four or five o'clock in tire
evening of the 25th March, Mr. Booty came to Mr. tie's house.
When he came in Airs. 0. said, ' How do you do, Sir, I saw
nosen the-coach ?" Ile said," Did you, I looked up, but could
ot se you : 1 suppose these blinds prevented me." Before
Mr. Booty came, my mistress told me that she would go ,out
in the evening ; but when the coach passed she said she should
not go mit, as she had seen a friend on the coach with whom
she might spend an hour or two in the et, • .ing. When Air.
Booty came I went out of the house for a short time, and on
my return I found my mistress was dressed ready to go out. She
told me to make up her bed, as Mr. Booty wns to sleep in it,
and she would sleep with me. Mrs. G. a Air. Itourtier (Air.
o.'s brother-in-law), and the defendant then went out to tea.
My master returned about eight o'clock in the evening. Mrs.
G. anti the defendant came home about eleven o'clock. My
master was then In the house, and I was ironing in the parlour.
My mistress desired me to -leave off ironing,. and prepare for
I bed. She desired me not to take the ironing board to the
kitchen (where it was generally kept), but to leave it in the
passage. I did so; and when I returned to the parlour to take
in the night candlestick, I saw AI rs.o. and the defendant sitting
opposite each other et the fire, and Mrs. o.'s legs were between
the defendant's legs. She desired me to go to bed, and that
she would follow me in a few minutes. 1- again returned to
the parlour, for the purpose of bringing in some wood for the
fire the next morning. The defendant and Airs. G. were still
sitting' in the same position. My bed-room was on the same floor
with the parlour. After I got to my own bed-room, I heard a
noise, as if a chair was knocked, against a table, and slipped
it across the room. Mr. G. then came to me in the passage,
and asked me to follow him Into the room ; but I refused to
do so. About a few minutes before Mrs. O. came out of the
room I heard the defendant tell her she had better set her
things to rights before she went out. I heard Mrs. G. then go
into her bed-room, which opened into the parlour, anti she
brought out some clothes into the room. .I then heard some noise
like kissing, but .lem not sure. Mrs. G. then asked the de-
fendant if he had his watch ? The watchman cried half-past
12 before Airs. G. carnet() bed. She got up about fl o'clock
next morning, and breakfasted with Mr. Booty in the parlour.
After breakfast, when.T was in the bed.room, some one shut
the door ' and I leaned, and heard Mrs. O. and the defendant
kissing. Mrs. G. then went to Colchester to fetch her daughter,
and she told me•that I need not get nay one to.sleep with me, as
Booty,weuld sleep in the house; he did sleep there that
night, and Mr. (folding went the next clay to London.
Crose-exemined—Mr. Bositier called et Mr. f f.'s house a few
minutes after Air. Booty's arrival; Mrs. 0. did not send me to
tell Mr. Bowler that Air. Booty lied arrived. Air. (folding,
when he first came, went, down to the kitchen, and he after-
wards concealed himself for some time under the bed in die
bed-room. After I refused to et!: with him into the parlour,
Mr. G. went down stairs and hid himself in the coal-hole. I
told Air. O. what was going on in the parlour, and he listened
in the passage for about a quarter of' an hour. I believe Mr.
Cr. stopped in the kitchen all night. When I got up in the
morning I found Air. 0. sitting by the kitchen fire.; he did not
appear to be much depressed. Mr.. and Mrs. O. went to Lon-
don in the course of that week, but Mr. G. never told me that
he took Airs. 0. to sleep at Mr. Booty's house in London.
After I left Mr. G.'s service, 1 went to five with Mr. Groom ;
Mr (folding recommended me to the place. 1 am now sup.
ported by my father. I have of nothing from Air. (folding,
nor do 1 expect any thing. Whilst I was et Mr. (holding's my
trunks were never searched, nor were any silk mhoes or bonnets
found in them. Before 1 lived with Mr. Golding I lived with
Airs. Kerzy, and she gave are a character when I left her. The
clothes I now wear I bought out of my wages. I rode twice in
a chaise with Mr. (inkling and the baby. My mistress has the
appearance of being 40 years of age, and n not very handsome.
In March last my mistress was far gone whir child. I have
never said that 1 could not say any thing against my mistress
on this subject. I have never said to Thomas Raw, nor to any
other person, that I would not say any thing against my mis-
tress If she had not treated me with contempt.
Re-examined—When I left Mrs. Kerzy's, I went to Mr.
Potter's, and he gave me a character to my next place. Mrs.
Golding had a character with me. When I went in the chaise
with Air. Golding, I had the baby. On one occasion I went
to Airs. G.'s mother, and the, ther time I had the child under
my care, and Mr. (folding drove us out fot an airing. I left

ayne,

Mr. Groom's service of my own accord, and went to live with
my mother. I told my master before he concealed himself un-
der the bed of the noise in the parlour.
Iteeross-eacamined.--Afe.a. my mistress went to Colchester,
any master opened het drawers; and took out her letters.
VIC SoLic i'ron-lIENcn AL addressed the Jury for the tle-
Tentlinit. Ile trusted that he should be able to make the
Juiylielieve that there wits not a tittle of evidence to support
the charge of criminal conversation. His Learned Friend bad
divided this drama (as he called it) into three scenes, the
first of which was laid at Mile-end-road, the next at Bury St.
Edmond's, and the thiid at Ipiwich. With respect to the
transaction at Mile-end-road, he put it to the Jury—was it not
safer to give credit to the account given by the plaintiff' of his
business at Mile-end-road, namely, that he went to see if the
report in circulation about the defendant's having concealed his
furniture was. true, than to come to a conclusion that the de.
Pendant went there for the purpose of having criminal inter-
course with the plaintiff's wife, and of which there was not a
single tittle of direct evidence? Indeed he thought the account
of the servant girl as to the state in which the furniture of •
the room was, supported rather than rebutted Mr. B. 's state-
ment .at the meeting. If this statement were not correct,
what, he would ask, could induce the defendant to make it ?
Where was the necessity for making it ? If he had any criminal
intention in going to the plaintiff's lodgings, where was the occa-
sion for his telling that he had been there to examine the furni-
ture? He now came to Ipswich; and taking all which the
plaintiff's servant had sworn to be true, still he did not think
there was evidence of a criminal intercourse having taken place
there. Was it to be supposed that .the 'plaintiff's brother-in-law,
Boutier, invited the defendant and Mrs. Golding to his house
to afford them an opportunity of consummating their guilt ?
Great stress was laid upon the fact of Mr. (.'s having, when
she returned from Boutier's house with the defendant, ordered
the servant out of the room. Was there any thing extraordi-
nary in a mistress's having, at half-past eleven o'clock at night,
ordered a servant to leave off work, particularly when that
servant was, while she continued at work, occupying the only
sitting-room in the house ? The defendant said to the plain-
tiff's wife in the parlour, according to Smith's evidence, " Set
your things to rights." What did that expression mean ? It
was in evidence that Mrs. G. set off next morning for Colches-
ter; and that upon the defendant saying these words she went
into the bed-room, and brought out some of her clothes. Was
it not clear from all this that the meaning of these words wai—
" as you are going to Colchester in the morning, you had better
pack up your clothes to-night?" Smith had sworn that Mrs.
Golding asked the defendant if he had his watch. She might
have done so, probably for the purpose of asking at that lite
hour of the night what o'clock it was.. The Learned Counsel
proceeded to argue at considerable length, that upon the plain-
tifra own evidence he was not entitled to a verdict, dr if he was,
that. the smallest damages would be sufficient.
His boansinv summed up, and the Jury having con.
salted together for a few minutes, the Foreman asked his Lord-
ship what damages would carry costs ?
The Loup Cm tur ...in ST ICE—In these cases it is better that
you should give whatever you think the plaintiff entitled to,
and leave the other part of the case to the law.
1 The Jury having again consulted together, found. a verdict
or the plaintiff—Damages.2ol.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 19.

DEN'NIWOII v. ROTHSCHILD.
This wax an action to recover from the defendant the sum of
1,2351. Is. 9:1. detained by him from the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant PELT. suited the case to the Jury. The de-•
fendant in. the cause was no other, than Mr. N. slayer Roths-
child, a name that.carried with it opulence to such an extent,
as to make the individual regarded almost as a royal merchant.
It was a name never to be forgotten in the annals of the wealth
and respectability of the country. This action was brought to
recover a sum of money which the plaintiff alleged the defend-
ant had received in .a transaction arising out of the Neapolitan
Loan, and which the defendant now refused to return, though
it would he :proved to belong to the plaintiff: It appeared
that in the year .1822 the house of Rothschild negociated a
loan for the Neapolitan Government, and it was well known
that when a loan was once mentioned, the name of Rothschild
immediately suggested itself. The sum in question, amount-
ing to 1,2351. Is. 9,1., was paid in as a subscription to that loan,:
and six scrip receipts were given as an acknowledgment, the
payer-in undertaking. to make good his engagements,. and Mr.
othsehild biniling 'himself, on his part, to fulfil his contract.
Ile (Mr. Serjeant Pelliwould not trouble the Jury with culling
many witnesses, believing that the cause, from the nature of it,
could not occupy much time. Indeed, his own opinion was,
that it must ultimately be decided in that high Court out of
which the present record came.
The following document was then read :
Neapolitan 5 per Cent. Receipt, with Interest from let Idly,
• 1822,
Received one hundred aria thirty-seven pounds, four shillinks,
and eight-pence, being 10 pt.r Cent. on ducats rafo, Neapoli-
tan Rentcs, on payment of the balance on or before the Ist of
February, 1023, .with 4 per Cent. interest thereon. The bearer
will be.entitled to certificates to that amount of stock, with in-
terest coupons from Ist July, 11122.
Next followed the items, and the amount in question, rept.
laxly signed.
Mr. Serjeant PELL, in continuation, said the money had,
been deposited in two distinct payments. The next point in
the cause was an advertisement which Mr. Rothschild had in-
serted in a morning newspaper on the 14th January, 1823.
By that he allowed to the subscribers an extension of time for
paying in their instalments, on condition of their making one
payment on the Ist of February, another in March, and a third
in April, the whole period to close finally in July. y.the plain.
tiff, as a holder of scrip receipts, on seeing the aderlitieement,
took them to Mr. Rothschild and lett them in his office, with
a note, stating, that he wished to avail himself of his offer,and
begged he would have the certificates prepared to that efThet.
These receipts when left were regularly marked. On the 11th
of March, Mr. Hennings received from Mr. Rothschild's soli-
citor a letter, which he, Mr. Serjeant Pell, would put in as
binding on Mr. Rothschild, inasmuch as the writer was the
defendant's attorney on the record. He would now state this
fact, as he understood there would be an objection to receiving
it, inasmuch as Mr. Green, the attorney it; question, was not
in Court to identify the signature.
Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAN submitted that the letter could not
be received, as his client's cause was not to be prejudiced by an
unauthenticated document.
Mr. Serjeant PELL said his Learned Brother had never
heard from him that he could not verify the letter. The cur-
tain was drawn up too soon, and the prompter, Mr. Wilde,
had rung his bell too suddenly, so that the principal actor, Mr.
Serjeant Vaughan' came upon the stage long before his time.
(A. laugh.)—For his own part he should be ashamed to resort
to any evidence which could prejudice the cause of the defendant,
unless it was in every respect strong enough to bear him out.
But were difficulties now to be thrown in the way of Mr. Hen-
nings, merely because the defendant's attorney did not choose
to appear in Court?
Mr. Justice litruttouGlT decided that the letter might at
least be read in this stage of the cause. It was as follows:
March 11, 1823.
SIR—I am desired by Mr. N. M. Rothschild to express to
you his surprise, that you have not made the further payments
on the Neapolitan Scrip engagements, specified in your letter
of the 21st of January last, after having there stated that you
would avail yourself of the terms of his offer. With every de-
sire to avoid the adoption of measures which might be unplea-
sant to you, he cannot suffer a matter of this consequence to
remain unsettled, and my instructions arc to commence pro-
ceedinga against you thrthWith, if these payments benot imme.
diately made.

W. H. ORZEN.
On the l4th of May the plaintiff tendered to 51r. Rothschild
the whole amount he had engaged for, but that gentleman re-
fused to accept it, and would not give any thing whateverin re.
turn. Accordingly the plaintiff called upon him, either to ful-
fil his engagements, or return the money he had in his hands,
but he would do neither, and, theretirre, the present action was
brought. This was the short statement of facts on the part of
the plaintiff. and the Learned Judge would expound to the
Jury any question of law that might arise in the course of the
trial.

George Wm. Rohrs examined —I am clerk to Mr. Hen-
nings, and have been in that situation for about ten years. The
witness here identified the six scrip receipts the form of which
was as follows :—.

On scrip receipt, No. 433. 600 ducats - . £137 4 8
434 600 ducats - . 137 4 8
650-1000 ducats - 274 9 3
651-1000 ducats - - !74 9 3
972 500 ducats . 137 4 8
With interest from 14th Oct. 1822.
lle tken identified the advertisement, dated 14th Jan. 1823.
The letter addressed by the plaintiff to 31r. Rothschild tender-
ing the scrip receipts was written in consequence of the adver-
tisement. I went with the certificate for the purpose of seeing
the certificate marked. It was duly marked, one part by the
clerk, and the other by Mr. Rothschild. I know of a letter
dated • 11th March, addressed to Mr. kennings. I do not
know the hand-writing of my own knowledge, not having seen
Mr. Green write.

William Henry Green, the solicitor to Mr. Rothschild, was
then called three times upon a subpoena, but did not appear.
John Rigby, the clerk of Messrs. Green and Ashurst, WAS
then called, but could not identify the writing of Mr. Green,
stating that he had never seen him write; and had only been
two months in the office. The witness had seen similir wriz-
ing to that of the letter in question in the office, but could not
say who the writer was.
Cross-examined—Mr. Green has been ill for the Last tltre,s

months, and not able to attend the office in consequence. I
gave notice to the plaintitT'a attorney, that he was Mond unable -
to attend as a witness. I asked Mr. Dance, the solicitor, win-
there he would ogre; to postpone the cause, to consider the
offer of Mr. Asburst at an end. lie said he had not considered

the offer since.
Mr. Dance, the sen of the plaintiff's solicitor, identified a
letter which he had taken to Mr. Green, and stated, that he
had come to subprena Men on she cause.
Mr. Serjeant PELL then desired the witness to state WhOt
had passed between him and Mr. Green on the occasion.
Mr. SeljealltiTAUGUAg objected to the question, but tue
Court decided that it might be put.
The witness then said that 31r. Green had told him that 31r.
Ashurst could prove his hand-writing. Ile put his thumb en
the signature at the same time. The body of the letter was not -
in he same writing the signature. Witnees asked him if
het would admit the letas ter, and he said he had not attended to
this cause.
Mr. Serjeant PELL then submitted that he was now entitled
to put in the letter as evidence- •
Mr. Serjeant \rammer contended that it could not be re-
ceived as evidence.
Mr. Justice B unuoti Git—l think it may go to the Jury.
Mr. Serjeant Vatroisaer again submitted that unauthectis
cater! as it was, it ought not to go to the Jury.
Mr. Justice BURROUGII—i think it may be read, the effect
of it as evidence k another thing.
Of:Mr. Serjeant VAUGHAx entreated his Lordship to consider
the serious consequenceof allowing such documents to be read.
It was only presumed that the writer cf the letter was the litters
ney in the cause, and there was no evidence to show he
bad
written the letter.
Mr. Justice iltranotrost —That is another question. ,
The witness then said that the conversation betwesn him an'
i
Green took.place last Saturday.
Mr. Serjeant BOSANQUET, who was with Mr. Serjeant
VAUGHAN, submitted that even the admission of the sir,'"
lureptoethrivnleeilorstyr
itueoe thestlnnlyawieiecoa.rwere
ht i seit‘iNal,aallftr tiarhci
ooat.tuti ofis Mr. Green,
cause. There was no evidence to show that Mr. Green lest
admitted his signature . if had been a party in the cause
might make a material'difference, and the Jury might, perhall,
Mr. WILDE followed to the same effect, contending tiles;
aonf3AAl rtt.ttooSnr Attorney
anothereetc srl
sure,
leapdsee
,rwbsbelolunisetthrcaoo
nusshgl.
edoerrwyperelv)
tv)iteed)hreinit:ti.ci
stehrtiet.i,
;a. evidence' ht
e'..
did not appear that Mr. Green admitted his signature, f°
cnorradi thatn?tailnleidere
watsh the hitter Isi
tvaseiloe:wecceoor,ved..tit,:er
yeyaoinnnt
rttliiEle:carre.use could not be received as evidence;
ill;
tow could
(ei
baregit:lnuireenatbosfuhrdis
til:aenarisluetclhr
ar:Cdi3O„,:nonioll.' ndini nnini. 1
AFGHAN' pro that the
the Attorney could not be received ass'evidence, but - t 11'
by hum and his Learned Friends. who were with hills to
d"
cause, was not shaken in any respect. The assertion the
Dot
was on his side a pliant show of authority,_ but a `he
01l
display of force, might be retorted on his learned lilt
the other side, for they displayed no force at all.
Mr. Juatice flu into IT G il —The only
Mr. Green admitted his signature to the letter. Wiwther se
letter is"to be received in evidence or not, •
lam of opinion the question ofthe • is an ao to 11.
signature may e.
Jury.
The witness 'Rigby stated that Messrs. Green and Ml,1;11',
were the attornies to Mr. Rothschild when he first cattle into
question now is, wilethhet
their employment.
The letter, as given above, was then read. • 1,,
The witness Rohrs was again called, and stated that on hit
14th .May Mr. Hennings tendered to Mr. Rothscnild In',
amount of his certificates in Bank-notes. The whole Ott,
lie tendered was 11,375,0001., including principal and fide'.
3lr. Henning. said to Mr. Rothschild " I came toter lerls°ll
the amount of my certificate." Mr. Rothschild gut ill) Irog
his seat, flew into a violent passion, and said, " I have not vo
to do with you, Sir ; I don't know you ; you are too ii,triliii,
must go to my lawyer." Mr. Ilenninge then %aid, „ode
Mr. Rothschild, your lawyer wrote me a letter." 31r;L'heel
schild would not say another word, but beckoned with! 1.6.. ,t,
OrPIRICTIt et
for Mr. Hennings to leave the room. On the 3tl Of .iincw',.
ness went with a letter from Mr. Hennings to Mr. Rot ins
1.71
The letter, which was in the following terms, WAS LIIC s
Stn-1 beg leave to say, I again offer to Po' lno. due en the
with interest, up to the present time, c°6131" gu on having
Nom. 3R,
oFthowackheisi'ds,-bEu.:qld.ing, Tower-street, 3d J une,
Scrip receipts of 4,500 ducats Neapolitan Itentcs,
..pbeionAvs
the stock certificates, with the interest couP°l' ref„,: -Os
thereto delivered. to me. And if you continue to
the dosit,
said certificates I require on immediate retor yaw , ,
: On the into
money received by you upon the Scrip rece.P.l,t h De cone
rest thereon; and if you decline to do either, w•l'c ' Noe
deration (especially as my claim stands on tlitYcrenl go will
front those or other holders of Nerpolitan Scrip), 1 ZOO
not be the case, I shall be under the necessity of 011-
an.action against yon to recover the same.
I am, respectfully, Sir.
Your most obedient gervuoz,vps,
IigNANA,-`•
ntrd the leech
'Rothschild said to the saltness, when he VI
el Voln Y(4'
" Who are, you ? I don't know you—I wiling tall at ago',
must go to my lawyer about it_l know
it." • . ipo
Scrip rest
Cross-examined.—Mr. Hennings bought the . _s es
from Mr. Lowe, who was hie debtor. 3lr. flennininspl_7,,,,„,,,
one of the original holders. Mr. "Jennings is a 41',„!opsrsi
derable property, but men of pr rty are not always r, viol
ope
tared with mons> rso
with money. Mr. Henning* was 1)1' 'he eerie bekbe
the Ist February, but le made no payment. Itill MAY' tin
to fall on the Ist February, and continued to fall
got i ~.,.
French entered Madrid in May, and then the Scr,i.l) gl'lles?.
Hearings took the securities at 7/1. TheY had L'eeenS pee
rising When 'Mr. Henning' made the'first tender „lie
Itotliss°
Did not know that Mr. }Jennings had veld 31r.
with thee,
de
the Exchange, that he would have nothing to . • psi
he had already lost money by them. eo ficonigi
Re-ex
—On the 23 November, 111...,
advanced 1,6001. on the credit of the securities.
s,,k.
. n
the
balltal:
Mr. Green's letter was then put in. . 1 for ti' a
Mr. Serjeant VAUGUAX addressed the ere
opoesbr
fendant. Mr. Rothschild was designated, i
soon', solo
the cause, as a Royal Merchant, but he woul .able O, suntan
a Royal Merchant, if he was to be made eoe 01,0
mends as those now made upon him. 3ir. Rol tl,7eseecoe,a'isi
now in England, but wherever lie was, his hegne'stsa tbs:oo
could not for a moment be questioned. Ile nutiee fieere
Jury would hear in mind, that this WAS art Meal upo,olll
had and received; and Mr. Rothschild was Olio, to ;00)
place in the pocket, of Mr. Hennings certain lied 0, es
he alleged himself entitled. If Mr. Rothschild ii,e such
,afro
perform his contract, the plaintiff might Ileshere*ersg
mand. But there was no privity of contract,. , tiies reei
mutuality of obligation. The Learned. ssn'erjLosno, artisan
on to describe the details of the Neapolite s let. !goes
that the scrip came into the London 31grijes in tireio,4,
consequence of political causes that the 0,0,11er eerneol I'd
rose, and the defendant, who was a welit''S l'oriltei.eis,,
purchased them from his debtor, a Mr. 10e'f,,o ex orl ,
plaintiff accepted the offer of Mr.'ltotbschild, , t.siesi two th
time for paying in the instalments; but havilYe pot c the
within the specified time, of course he c°` 0101 to.
money in question. eel not sPrie 0111,,elielS
Mr. Justice BUIIROUGH said, it o." -1,),,, to eseSs., 0
plaintiff had made any deposit at all, agreellh Ole I,';', Cso;ss
Mr. Rothschild's advertisement ; for tholig
cll in
in ,tig it
had been paid in would give the p.laintiff a.C:rpo, tle
Equity, it would give no claim in a Couto' (f,
nth, testy,
not paid according to the necessary legal f5,°,;10.,,,,t, Mr.,„511j,
Mr. Serjeant PELL contended, At .gilttion we, orir
plaintiff stood precisely in the sante tdoese eletV
would have stood in, who had paid in t°,lolo* et'
and whose interest was then offered to tile }ced. 4 itiloro.
The Courrr ordered this point to b' ~,i4cr, lOO
Ile 01. , e cos , Jo
Mr. Serjeant VAtIGUAX resumed. St ~s re regia jee
ant that the Jury should look to the merol ogtrest,s,lfor gliSrsee
peared that the plaintiff considered the c o,iittwoolJoel,
the part of Mr. Rothschild, and thereroll:l, ,she butt ? "if
sits, which had been paid in by love. ' eppli steerirs°'
.1, en 1 eel . tali's of
ally be the answer of Mr. It. to such nt, 04 1 ion in ci, %
that the party had broken his engagerdees)eres ,'stelelerA
forfeit the deposit, as he had tailed ill. 11;001, lll§toel‘eirg:i.
The plaintiff had neither paid the iiement. tj-et Vellll' so
March instalment, nor the April instathe vest: b Dy 0_ 11, t' ,
down the whole time from*o67 i j,,a( loacoett io c'e
If Mr. Rothschild was thus to IN:
~,ti, eng,tl, ? Sef,isorsi
chaser, how was he to fulfil the wctS4'l,(heeasir solo es;
under with such an immense loan of; ;be 1,141,1.1.1 t: 01.1:01 tal;)
equitable point of view the claim 01_, the s St'estil.sijijoe
sustained. Was he to take leave In, eawtoll? Itiof pill
bye to it the moment he fotind it sting
.P.10ce,...rs (
turn to it die moment he found it
silitaj 11;`„rice4 Ocii..
esydstthematoffoprlathvireeng
thoughts to the script, but ai", eeila..eso
es, sie.le„Solis!,
French having entered 3.leslitd 41'1, feet lw;hsslids°,,er (smelts
cation and tender his money.
bile 31c. 1 qndeil ily ill 0
responsibility. le -Je Ihe ease 0" 4oe§. he 0 (oft be
wished to have all
'The
eibeitnrnelleta be t„,iors; eel d°
proitieln
observations, by saying that it pa Witi.le'wottla vi,theif t°o
.!
of his client, that he would call said, it r . ode I,,eilt,s'for
31r.Justicelltranoutat thin the Jtk yells F. 0
,to4tuatini,dlllcllcr.lwl7-teean
at
nfoilloglilitilisc:11,1:11111,
‘Tri :istel,
confirmed in the event of the-,
_erro,„
li ivet° •
certain points of law whir
onfirlithtelLiseZnWeda *.rudegiuel,cfetsoden;deuntliceeratlicetc.!-,1f.:14'd 111
1)°