The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-30 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUEB, Jan. 29.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Mr. Baron PLAIT and a
Common Jury.)
BEAMISII V. OWNES.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover three
sums of 6501., 431. 10s., and 33/. 65., deposits paid on the sale
of an estate valued at 65,000/. The plaintiff was a gentleman
of fortune, and the defendant an attorney-at-law, practising
in Moorgate-street. The defendant, it would appear, had
agreed with the plaintiff to sell him an estate, which was
situated on the borders of Wales, for the sum of 65,000/., and
the plaintiff paid him a deposit of one per cent. on the pur-
chase money, amounting to 650/., and 43/. 10s. for the ex-
pense of surveying the property, which the defendant repre-
sented had been placed in his hands for disposal. This
agreement was made in March, and the defendant then under-
took to have a conveyance of the property, and all the neces-
sary deeds for transferring it to the plaintiff, prepared and
ready for execution on the 29th of the succeeding September.
In May an abstract of title was forwarded to the plaintiff's
attorney, who never expressed his approbation or
disapprobation of its correctness, and the defendant
delayed the pi eparation of the conveyance till
four days before the appointed 29th of September, when
he received a letter from the plaintiff stating his readiness to
execute the deed and complete his part of the contract. It
had, however, become utterly impossible to have the deeds
prepared within the time specified in the agreement of sale;
and, on the 24th of October, the plaintiff brought the present
action to recover back the money he had paid as the deposit,
and for the surveys, as well as 331. 65., the expenses the
plaintiff had been put to in the matter.
For the defence, it was urged that the plaintiff had not been
allowed sufficient time for preparing the deeds ; but, even
supposing they had been ready by the 29th of September, the
plaintiff was not in a position to pay the balance of the pur-
chase-money.
Mr. Baron PLATT, in his summing up, left it for the jury
to say, firstly, whether the plaintiff had given sufficient time
for the fulfilment of the agreement, and secondly, whether or
not the plaintiff was in a position, en the 29th of September,
to pay the balance.
The jury, after a short consolation, returned a verdict in
favour of the plaintiff for the 650 L, but expressed it as their
opinion that the defendant had not been allowed sufficient
time to execute the conveyance, and that the plaintiff, on
the 29th of September, was not in a condition to pay the
balance of the purchase-money.

I COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Jan. 29.
REGISTRATION APPEALS.
ALEXANDER V. NEWMAN.—LIIPORTANT DECISION.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE this morning delivered judgment
in this appeal against the Revising Barrister of the West
Riding of the County of York, who had decided that parties
joining together to purchase tenements for the object
of "multiplying voices," had acted in agreement
with the statutes therein made and provided; the purchase
and conveyance of the property on which the qualification
was sought being complete, the purchase money paid on it,
and all interest transferred from the seller to the purchaser,
objection was taken to such votes by the appellant, on the
interpretation of 3 Wm. 111., cap. 35, which, it was alleged,
made conveyancing for the object of multiplving voices null and
void. The Court was of opinion that this act had only relation to
conveyances that were fraudulently made for the purpose
of multiplying voices, and where the sale and purchase of the
property were not bond fide and complete. The present case
was one of great importance, as its settlement would affect a
great number of cases, and the Court considered the statute
of William 111. did not apply to it. The provisions of that
statute only extended to fraudulent conveyances, and not to
conveyances that were bond fide and real. It had reference
alone to fictitious conveyances, and were a secret understanding
existed between the buyer and seller, where the interest in
the property did net pass fully from the one to the other.
The first question as to the validity of the conveyance arose
on the ground of common law. On this head the Court
was of opinion, according to common law, that any contract
entered into honestly and openly, and where the purchase of
the property was bond fide and complete, even though the
object of both buyer and seller was the avowed object of
multiplyingvoices, was good ; that the conveyance arising out
of such a purchase ought to be sustained ; and that it was only
where there existed a secret understanding, and where the sale
was merely nominal or fictitious, that the conveyance could
be declared void. His Lordship here referred to a case de-
cided by the late Lord Somers fifteen years before the pass-
ing of the Reform Bill, arising out of the splitting of
burgage tenures in the borough of Hazlemere. In that
case the votes were declared bad and void, because no
good consideration was given for the property which
was split for the purpose of multiplying votes. The practice,
founded on the common law, was to reject only such con-
veyances as were made without proper consideration, and
not where the contract was made honestly and the property
duly transferred in exchange for its fair value, the seller
giving up all further claim on the property. The statutary
law warranted the same construction. The statute of Wm.
111. fairly construed only bore against fictitious conveyances,
but, that were a purchase was real and bond fide,
the conveyance was not void, even although the object both
on the part of buyer and seller was for the purpose of multi-
plying voices at elections. There was nothing against buy-
ing land for the purpose of obtaining a vote. It was neither
malum in se, nor malum prohibitum. To hold such a view
would be to interfere with the fair and free interests and
rights of landed property, and it had been held as beneficial
to the constitution to increase the number of votes; the
effecting of which was the leading object of the late
Act of the Legislature for the extension of the franchise.
The interpretation the Court had given of the statute of
William 111. was borne out by a statute ou the same subject
passed in the reign_ of Queen Anne, and also another enacted
in the reign of George 11. The Court, on these grounds, was

Mr. Frederick Strachan, another clerk in the same bank,
deposed to having taken the cheque to Messrs. Coutts and
Co.'s, upon whom it was drawn, and it was paid in the usual
course of business.

Mr. J. Hayward, clerk to Mr. Maule, solicitor to the Trea-
sury, produced an office-copy of the order made by the Lord
Chancellor in the matter of the Rev. E. Franks, and was
examined as to its accuracy, &c.
Mr. S. Parkinson, chief clerk at the Accountant-General's-
office, in Chancery-lane, inspected the document produced
by the last witness, and after stating in detail the mode in
which business was conducted in the Accountant-General's-
office, he deposed that within the last few days he had exa-
mined the direction-book, the ledger, the journal, and the
receipt-book, and there were no entries in either of them
relating to any payment under the order in question. He
had examined them from the sth of November, 1844 (the
date of the order of the Lord Chancellor), up to within a
day or two ago.
Cross-examined by Mr. Parry—l have been in the Ac-
countant-General's-office upwards of thirty years, and have
known the prisoner, as having business with the office,
nearly the whole of that time. He is known also to every
other clerk iu the office. I know nothing of him beyond this.
Mr. S. J. Smyth, a clerk in the Chancery-office of the
Bank of England, where sums of money were received under
the direction cf the Accountant-General, and placed to the
credit of the particular cause specified in the certificate, said,
on the production of the certificate or direction of the Ac
countant-General, with the sum of money mentioned therein,
the clerk receiving it would make out a receipt, which, after
being entered in the cash-book, would he handed to the per-
son paying the same, to take over to the cashier in another
department. A memorandum of the payment would then
be sent up to the Accountant-General's-office, and the certi-
ficate filed in the Chancery-office of the Bank of England.
Witness had held his present situation for nine years, and
was acquainted with all the cashiers in the Bank, and all the
entry clerks in his department. There had not been, during
that time, any cashier named " W. R. West," nor any entry-
clerk named "F. H. Ward." (These were the names signed
to the document represented by the prisoner as an office copy
of the receipt given at the Bank of England.)
Mr. Clark was about to examine the witness upon the
contents, or rather the non-contents of the cash and entry-
books, but
Mr. Parry objected to any such statement being made in
the absence of the books of which he was going to speak.
Mr. Clark said he believed the Governors of the Bank of
England did not allow the production of their books.
Mr. Parry denounced this notion as a parcel of stuff, and
observed that the Bank of England was as much bound by
the laws of the land as a greengrocer. He stated that in the
case of Barber and Fletcher the books of the Bank of
England were,produced at the Mansion-house and thoroughly
examined.

After some furthq discussion the point was decided in
accordanOwith Mr. Parry's view of the matter. His
Worship, therefore, ordered the production of the books,
although Mr. Smyth stated that, if assented to, it might
have the effect of stopping the entire business of the Bank
of England.

Mr. Smyth was subsequently cross-examined by Mr. Parry
as to the payment of the cheque. If it had been crossed as it
originally was, instead of bearing the words "Gosling and
C 0.," it would not have been paid. The cheque, as drawn by
Messrs. Bellamy and Foster, the trustees, would not have
been received, unless previously cashed elsewhere.
Mr. F. Reid, a clerk in the report-office, corroborated the
evidence of Mr. Parkinson as to the furnishing of office-
copies of the Accountant-General certificates on payment of
the usual fees, &c., and explained some other routine busi-
ness of his department. He was confident that the docu-
ment produced (the one sent by the prisoner to the trus-
tees) was not an office-copy, from the fact that it was not
in the handwriting of any of the clerks, and was not drawn
in the manner invariably adhered to in the office, there
being nineteen lines to the page instead of twenty-six, and
six words in the line instead of seven. The amount of the
fee was also different.

Cross-examined—He was certain that the handwriting
was not that of either of the clerks in the office, because all
the copies passed through his hands. There might be hun-
dreds of thousands of these copies in the course of the year;
he could not speak within a thousand. Many writers out of
the office were employed to furnish copies.
A lad, who had been in the prisoner's service from No-
vember to Saturday last as a clerk, proved that the alleged
office-copy was written by him, in obedience to his master's
directions, en Saturday, the 17th instant, from a copy which
the prisoner gave him. The prisoner desired him to be
careful with it and not to spoil it, as he had no other paper
folded in the same manner; he also explained the form in
which he was to write it. On the same evening witness took
a large letter to the Post-office, directed to Mr. Bellamy, of
Brighton, The direction produced was the meek
Nolurther evidence was offered, and the case was conse-
quently adjourned, for the production of the Bank books,until
Wednesday week.
Mr. TWYFORD refused, on application, to admit the pri-
soner to bail, and he was accordingly remanded for a fort-
night.