The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-19 00:00:00

CHITTY V. KNOWLES.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOUILD said that this case had been
tried at the Doncaster Assizes before Mr. Justice Bosan-
quet, and a verdict had for the defendant. He now moved
their lordships to show cause why a new trial should not
be had, on the ground that the verdict had been against the
weight of evidence, and also that the learned judge should
have qualified his charge in laying the case before the jury;
and further upon an affidavit of surprise. The plaintiff
was an attorney, residing at Shaftesbury, and the defend-
ant a gentleman—Mr. Francis C. Knowles, lately become
Sir F. C. Knowles, by the death of his father, who had
been a candidate for the borough of Shaftesbury in two elec-
tions, 1830 and 1831. On these occasionsthe plaintiff acted as
the defendant's law agent, in conducting the elections, and the
action was brought to recover a sum of 1,0561., for
.plaintiff's
services and outlay of meney upon these two occasions ; and
also for the costs of defending three indictments which had
arisen out of the elections. No money had been paid into
Court, nor had there been any payment ever made by the
defendant to plaintiff. The defence was, that there had
been an understanding that the whole of plaintiff's services
would be given gratuitously. The evidence of the Rev.
W. St. John was that at a meeting which took place
previous to the election, it was stated by Chitty that the
expenses should not exceed 8001.
Mr. Justice BOSANQUET said he had a very full account
of the evidence ; the witness stated, that at several meet-
ings and dinners the plaintiff had been complimented for
his kindness in giving his services gratuitously. The wit-
ness was asked if he had ever told Chitty that a larger sum
would be given, but he positively denied it ; and then a
letter written by the witness had been put into his hands,
addressed to Chitty, the purport of,which Was, that he (the
witness) had a sum of 1,0001. ready for the election, and had
a carte blanche, for a further sum. On that letter
being put into the witness's hands he fell back, fainted
away, and was carried out of court. After some time the
rev. gentleman returned into court and admitted on his
cross-examination that he had a sum of 1,000/. for the
election—that he had written that letter to Chitty shortly
after the first meeting, in which Chitty said that he would act
gratuitously. The learned judge proceeded to read the
cross-examination of the witness at great length, but there
was no very material fact elicited in it.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD resumed—On the first elec-
tion the defendant was defeated by a majority of 24, and
on the second occasion by a majority of about 30, when
he stood with a Mr. Trant.

Mr. Justice BOSANQUET —lt appeared by the
evidence, that at the settlement of accounts, which Knowles
had become liable to, Chitty was present. The bills
amounted to 1,461/., but they were reduced to 1,115/.
Mr. George Chitty was present, and no demand had
been made by him for their services. The bills to the
amount of 1,1151. had been paid in sovereigns, and also
some smaller sums which Chitty had paid.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD—With respect to the first
election, a history of it had been written by a Mr. Rutter,
a bookseller, who was examined, and he could not point
out any passage in that history in which the gratuitous
services of Mr. Chitty were alluded to, although it
must have been well known that he expended 500/.
or 6001., and turned his house into an inn for the
accommodation of Mr. Knowles and his friends.
The conduct of Mr. Chitty at the settlement
of the accounts was also easy of explanation, because he
would show, by Mr. Knowles's letter to the plaintiff, that
he reserved the right to himself of remunerating Mr.
Chitty for his services.
Mr. Justice BOSANQUET—It is right to put the Court
in possession of how the election accounts were settled.
The evidence was, that Chitty at that time was present,
and that the accounts were corrected by Chitty himself ;
and opposite his services were marked the words " No
charge," and the account was signed by Chitty.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said the evidence of the plain-
tiff would explain that point. That evidence consisted of
several letters from the defendant to plaintiff. The
first was without date, and contained this passage :
" With respect to your own services, that is a se-
parate question, which you will, I am sure, leave to
me." If the case stood upon that letter alone, there should
have been a verdict for the plaintiff, and it perfectly ex-
plained the conduct of Chitty when the other bills were in
train of settlement. Mr. Rutter, in his evidence, stated
that the committee had paid no claim for defending the
rioters, and the inference was, that Chitty had carried on
that at his own expense, without any directions from Mr.
Knowles or his committee, but it would appear by the settled
accounts that there was a charge of 161. 4s. for horses and
carriages for the rioters, which had been paid by the com-
mittee.

The CHIEF JusTicE asked, why had not Chitty made
his demand for defending the prisoners at the time the ac-
counts were settling ?
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said the trials were not over
at that time. The next letter was dated 3d September,
1830, calling for the account of money paid by plaintiff
for bands of music, drink, &c., independent of plaintiff's
own services, which, " although you have kindly made an
oftvr of gratuitously, I cannot be ignorant were attended
with great expense and loss of time, which must of course
be defrayed by me." The next letter was of the 13th
to of
tJtuenaer, b
iltBr 3a
t2i,e
n ine
f replytw e
ftroi
eonndes
ef from me a ich side, atut yd,
tstating
thattThin There
rheheewasw wouldeanul
odltehnaeveret l
et
demand
eteemrc
ianidmj
tuhloyef
IwCB3hh
inole
quiring
ouremuneration
awt
hoenthe ee.
r
1,
the accounts forwarded by Chitty referred to the election
expenses or his own retaining fees, and containing this
passage : " Your own fees are of course a distinct affair,
and as I understand that you are inclined to give me some
indulgence in consideration of the great actual expense over
that calculated upon, I wish the settlement to be delayed
till my affairs are more settled." The learned sergeant
here alluded to the manner in wnich the question had been
put to the jury, and contended that in the whole of the
evidence, considering the importance and extent of the
case, it was one which was deserving of public investiga-
tion by the Court.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said it appeared there was no
ground for disturbing the law as laid down by the learned
judge. The Court would, however, grant a rule to show
cause, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to
evidence. —Rule granted.