The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-26 00:00:00

POCHIN V. 000 DAY.

This was an action on the case against an attorney to
recover back 6,0001., entrusted to him by the plaintiff
for investment, which it was alleged ho had negligently
and improperly invested.
Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Joseph Brown were
counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Shea and Mr
A. A. Fry fur the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES, in opening the plaintiff's case,
stated that the plaintiff was a gentleman who had for-
merly resided at Ipswich, but who now resided at Isling-
ton. The defendant was an attorney, who lived in
Doughty-street, Mecklenburg square. In 1846 the
defendant was desirous of disposing of a reversionary
interest he possessed in the Lawford Hall estate, near
Manningtree; and it was ultimately purchased for 6,000/.
by Mr. Garrod, of Ipswich. At this time Mr. Am-
brose, of Ipswich, was the plaintiff's attorney; but the
defendant's Lather, who was acquainted with the plain-
tiff, was extremely anxious that his sou should become
the plaintiff's attorney, and, atter several applications
to him on the subject, the plaintiff at length consented
that the defendant should manage the sale of the rever-
sion, and receive the money on his behalf. Uufortu-
nately the plaintiff was a person of very intemperate
habits, and in consequence suffered from delirium tre-
mens. On the morning the deed was to be executed the
defendant's father went to the plaintiff's house and
brought him to the deft ndant's chambers in Gray's Inn
in a cab. The plaintiff had had no breakfast, but in-
stead bad been drinking tea and brandy. It had been
arranged that all three were to return and dine at the
plaintiff 'a house, but the deed being executed and the
money paid to the defendant, the plaintiff, instead of re-
turning home to dinner with the defendant and his father,
they all went to the defendant's house, where the plain-
tiff drank to such an extent that the defendant recom-
mended his lather to get him home as quick as he could.
The lather did so, and when the plaintiff got home they
had some more brandy. The defendant's father then
left, and the plaintiff, overcome with liquor, went to
sleep i❑ his easy chair. In the course of the same after-
noon, and whilst the plaintiff was still asleep, the de-
fendant's father came again to his house, and, producing a
paper, told a person who lived with the plaintiff as his
wile, that the plaintiff must sign it or he would lose all
his money. She represented that he was not in a fit
state to do it; bat he said it must be done or the plain-
tiff would lose every farthing. The plaintiff was then
awakened and told what was required of him, and the
defendant's lather said to him, " You have often asked
me to take wine with you, and now I'll have some," and
a bottle of port wine was sent for. The defendant's
father then persuaded the plaintiff to sign the paper, and
pouring out a tumbler of port wine gave it to the plain-
tiff and said, " Here, take this, and it will make your
hand steady." The plaintiff drank the wine, and then
signed the paper. That paper purported to be an autho-
rity to the defendant to pay the 6,0001. to his own father,
and upon receiving that paper the defendant did give his
father an authority to receive the money from his
banker's. He should call on his Learned Friend to pro-
duce the document, and if he did so the jury would be
able to see from the signature what was the condition of
the plaintiff at the time he signed it. Having obtained
the paper the defendant's father gave the woman pro-
missory notes for 3,000/, 2,0001,, and 1,0001., payable at
12, 18, and 24 months respectively, with interest at four
per cent.; but as the interest was nut payable until the
notes were due the plaintiff was thus despoiled not only
of his principal but of every sixpence he had to live
on. 'These notes he left with the woman, and told her
to take care of them, but such was the state of the
plaintiff that she was unable to tell him of what had
taken place for several days afterwards. In the mean-
, time the defendant called, and the woman expresed
her alarm to him that the plaintiff had done wrong in
signing the paper, but he said it was " all right," and
told her "not to mind, for that his father would
take care of her and her children." The plaintiff was
afterwards informed of what had taken place, and ulti-
mately he consulted Mr. Rooke, a solicitor, on the sub-
ject, and Mr. Hooke edvised him to see the defendant,
and endeavour to get from him the best security
he could. The plaintiff (lid so, and when he returned
to Mr. Hooke produced a bond, by which the defend-
ant's father bound himself to pay the plaintiff's execu-
tors 6,0001, with inlet tst, by ►nstalments, withi❑ two
years of the plaintiff's death. That was rejected, and
afterwards one of the parties—he was sure which—went
to the plaintiff's, when Mr. Hooke was not present, and
took away the promissory notes, leaving in their place
a bond no better than the first, for they had signed
judgment upon it, but had been unable to get any money.
Undeir these circumstances, the plaintiff said, that hav-
ing entrusted the money to the defendant to invest on
good security, and the defendant having lent it to his
own father on security that was worthless, the de-
fendant was responsible for the money. The defendant's
answer was a plea of leave and licence; but the plain-
tiff's reply to this was, that that leave and licence was
obtained from him when he was intoxicated, and did not
know what he was doing; that it was, therefore, no au-
thority to the defendant to part with the money; and,
moreover, that the defendant and his father were well
aware of this when the plaintiff was induced to sign that
document. That was the plaintiff's case; and although
they had had many important cases at those sittings,
he did not think they had tried one more important
both to the parties and to the public. Since the action
had been commenced the plaintiff had received what
was equivalent to 900/., and this, of oourse, would be al-
lowed for in the vet diet.

The following witnesses were then called for the
plaintiff:—
Mr. T. J. Rnoke—l am a solicitor in Bedford-row. In
November, 1846, I was consulted by plaintiff about a
sum of 6,000/. I saw him once or twice afterwards. In
December he brought me a draft of a post obit bond. It
was rejected. I waited on defendant on the 7th Decem-
ber, at his chambers in Gray's Inn, and conferred fully
on the matter. He stated 6,0001. had been placed by
the plaintiff in his hands, and he had placed it in his
bankers', intending to find security for it, but after-
wards plaintiff gave him an authority to pay it to his
father, and he had done so. He admitted plaintiff was in
liquor when he received the notes, but said he was not so
when he signed the authority; that his father was a man
of large property, and he had title-deeds of his father's
property of double or treble the amount. I asked him
to give a mortgage, and he said his father would rather
return the money, but any security that could be agreed
on he would prepare. He pointed to a tin box, and
said there were title-deeds in it of an estate belonging
to his father worth treble the money. He also said
plaintiff was a man of such intemperate habits, that
he had handed it to his father to take care of it for
him. From what he stated I was perfectly satisfied
of the security, and believed his father to be a rich
man. I communicated the result of the interview to the
plaintiff. In Jan., 1847, the plaintiff came and consulted
me about a bond from Mr. Guoday. I prepared one
and furnished him with it on the Ed of February, 1847.
I did not see him again till May 5, 1848. He was angry
that I thought Mr. Gooday was a rich man. In July,
1848, plaintiff gave me instructions to get defendant's bill
of casts, and to get it taxed. I did so, and after taxa-
tion 771. was payable to the defendant. At the taxation
defendant produced the authority to pay his father
6,0u0/. This is the document. The body of it is in the
defendant'sTor2.9llE,a
sn.
pdv
W. Goodl, solicitor,
yer-stre..
rt, Islington, Nayo'vs,
17n,1h1846.
" Dear thr,—Be pleased to hand over to Mr. John
Chrisp Gooday the sum of six thousand pounds, which
ou have at your bankers, belonging to me, and for so
doing this shall 1)4 for you a sufficient authority.
" I remain, yours truly,
" Witness, J. Bradlough." " W. E. Poenist."
lam well acquainted with plaintiff's handwriting. The
signature to that raiser is far different to his usual sig-
nature. In June, 1850, he consulted with me again.
He has since employed me to sue old Mr. Gooday. I
have a judgment against him on this bond, which is con-
ditioned for payment of 6,0001., within two years of his
death, by instalments, with interest; the whole to be re-
coverable at once upon non-pay went of interest. No in-
terest has been paid since last Christmas. We have not
got anything on the judgment. Old Mr. Gooday told
me a few weeks ago he had nut 5/. in the world.
unlit
u- el xt
eadinmi nee do—n
ilhiksnbouwsinnteAshsrgHoef
eCcroons
was very ill when he came to me. I could not tell whe-
therp his illness was the result of drink or not. e-
I have
tiff never told me he had been an attorney.
.11 I
heard he was once in an attorney's office in
Mr. Gooday for
tendarit told me plaintiff was addicted to drink. Plain-
heard from plaintiff ho had known old .
father is
eaPbolaultnt4f3r.
in-
troduced hint. Old Mr. Gooday was then inspector of
taxes at Islington. Plaintiff told me he never would ac-
cept the post obit bond, and be took the draft of my
many years, but not the defendant until his
bond, end he hoped old illr. Gooday would execute
sea•cl
it, and I concluded he had done so. The letters shown
to me are plaintiff's handwriting. Except when under
the influence of liquor, plaintiff Was a man of ordinary
capacity. I have seen him in a state of intoxication, and
have then refused to transact business with him. The
person called Mrs. fochin is named Ullman Ladbrok,