The Sun.
London, England, 1833-11-04 00:00:00

NUGENT V. NUGENT.

This part-heard motion occupied a considerable part of
the morning in further discussion. It was an appeal from
an order made by his Honour, the Vice-Chancellor, di-
recting Lady Nugent (a married woman) to deliver up,
or cause to be delivered up, a certificate of Libranza, and
to give a certain hood of indemnity for the payment
of money. The arguments were put an end to by
the proposition of a gentleman behind the bar. fie ap.
peared for Mr. Cock. He had been the means both of
instituting the suit, and of c4rrying it on to an available
issue, upon an agreement with some parties interested in
the cause, that he should have ten per cent. on the amount
of the money recovered for his trouble, &c. 2,8001. had
been recovered. He was in possession of the Libranza. He
was now willing that it should be referred to the Master
to inquire what ought to be paid to him for the trouble
and expense he had been at, and that upon being paid
the amount which might be reported to be due to him,
he would deliver up the document. Lady Nugent ac-
kt,owledged the agreement, and was willing to consent to
this arrangement.
The LORD CHANCELLOR could not act upon any claim
of ten per cent. being allowed on what might be recovered
in any suit. That was a sort of agreement which ought
not to be heard of in a Court of Justice, nor, peobably,
anywhere else.
The BARRISTER said that Mr. Cock was not a solicitor,
but a commercial agent, and he submitted that such an
agent was at liberty to enter into an agreement of that de-
scription out of Cour t. He had been put to great expense ;
much of his time bad been occupied by the conduct of this
suit, and it would be extremely hard if he were now to
be left remediless.

Mr. JACOB, on behalf of Sir J ,mes Nugent, assented to
such a termination of the present proceedings, and Sir
EDWARD &win/4 also agreeing to it on the other side,
The CotraT ordered that it should be referred to the
master to inquire and state what ought properly to be
allowed to Mr. Cock, including his costs ; that all the
other parties should have their costs out of the fund ; and
that the fund should not be taken out of Court until after

the master had made his report. His Lordship observed
that if the case had proceeded, he should have felt great
difficulty in ordering a married lady to enter into any
indemnity that must have been against common law policy.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.

EDMONDS V. DOWNES.

This was an action upon a promissory note, tried before
Mr. Baron GURNEY, at the late asmizes for the county of
Salop, when a verdict was fouud for the plaintiff—
Damages 100/.
Mr. JERVIS, King's Counsel, now moved for a rule to
show cause why that verdict should not be set aside, and
the amount of the verdict paid into Court to abide the
event of the rule. The bill was dated January 19, 1819.
There was an endorsement on it, dated in March, 1826, in

the handwriting of the defendant, stating that the inte-
rest was paid up to that date; that, however, would
not take the case out of the Statute of Limi-
tations, which was pleaded, as the action was not
commenced till after March in the present year. The
plaintiff relied upon a letter which was stated to have been
written in October, but there was no date upon it, and
he contended, that if parole evidence was admitted to
prove the date of a paper, the statute of 6th Geo. IV.,
would be rendered nugatory. He further contended that
the letter was not a promise such as was required by the
Court ; for though it said in the opening—" I will pay
you both principal and interest, as soon as convenient," it
went on to say, " that he would pay no wore interest
until a final settlement of the accounts had taken place.
He cited the case of Janner and Smith as one strongly iu
point, and
The Court granted a rule Nisi.
STOKES V. WHITE.

This action was tried before the Lord Chief Baron, at
the London Sittings after lost term, when a verdict was
found for the plantiff, damages 101.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD this morning applied for a
rule to show cause why a nonsuit should not be entered or
the judgment arrested. The plaintiff was an attorney re-
siding in Guernsey, and the defendant one of the side
clerks in the Exchequer, who was engaged as agent to re-
cover a sum of money from Stokes. He sued out a writ
of special capias of privilege, which was given to an officer,
who arrested him in Bristol, to which place he had come
to attend a trial ati the assizes. He brought his action
on the ground of his having been arrested against his pri-
vilege, both as an attorney and as a witness. The
Learned Sergeant contended that the question of privilege
as an attorney was settled by the cases of Cameron v.
Lightfoot, and Walker r. Rushberry, reported in Sir Wil-
liam Blackstone's book, where it was loid down, that a
clerk in that Court had a perfect right to
.arrest an at •
torney, for his privilege, set against the privilege of the
other, rendered it null. Then, as to the other question,
the privilege of a witness, Mr. White was surely not
liable for the act of the officer. He had sued out a proper
writ, which was placed in an officer's hand ; and then,
he contended, the defendant's liability ceased, as he was in
London, and not setting the officer's in motion at the time
the privilege existed.
Rule granted.