The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-28 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nor. 27.

(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON and a Common Jury. )
BRANSCOMBE V. EMERTON.
Mr. STEER appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. JUSTICE
fur the defendant.
This was an action for an attorney's bill. The defendant
had gone to the plaintiff, at Aylesbury, and asked him about
prosecuting a man who had obtained a horse from the de-
fendant ; but the plaintiff said that the matter could only
be made the subject of an action. The actual proof was
given on the part of the plaintiff, that he had performed the
business of attorney to the present plaintiff in that action,
and the Learned Counsel for the defendant chiefly rested
his defence on the fact that there was no written retainer ;
and he attempted to argue from that circumstance that the
business was created by the plaintiff, who probably under-
took it on the principle of " no cure no pay."
Mr. Justice PATTESON said that it was not necessary
that there should be a written retainer ; and as to the ob-
servation about taking the case upon the principle of " no
cure no pay," he must take that opportunity of saying that
an attorney who made such an agreement was considered to
be disgraced, and the agreement itself was one which the
law would not enforce.—Verdict for the plaintiff.
PIKE V. FLOWER.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. CummiN)
stated the case. The plaintiff was a law-agent, carrying on busi-
ness for many years in Chancery-lane, and there were few more re-
spectable men engaged in his deqartment of business in the metro-
polis. This gentleman was employed by the defendant, an attor-
ney of Furnival's Inn, whose business was on a very limited snle,
to procure him a little business or partnership, and a memorandum
was drawn up between the parties, dated 11th Sept. 1832, by which
the defendant bound himself to pay 5 per cent to Mr. Pike, upon
any sum which he should be required to pay on account of any
business or partnership the plaintiff might procure for him.
About this period Mr. Alderman Harmer, a very eminent and well
known solicitor of the city, wished to lessen his professional labours
by taking three partners, and the plaintiff, after a good deal of
trouble, procured one of the shares in this company for Mr.
Flower, and for which the defendant was to pay a premium of 20001.
The plaintiff had been paid 151. on account, and it was for the ba-
lance at 5 per cent., which amounted to 851., that the present ac-
tion was brought. The defendant had some difficulty in raising the
20001., and employed the plaintiff to sell his business in Furnival's
Inn, but this was altogether a distinct transaction. Mr. Pike sold
it to a Mr. Young, and for this trouble Flower gave him his ac-
ceptance for 501., which was duly paid. This affair was wholly dis-
tinct from the procuring of the partnership, and he (the Attorney-
General) only mentioned it lest any unworthy attempt should be
made on the part of Mr. Flower to disgrace himself by setting up
this sum of 501. as part payment.
The plaintiff's clerk was called, and proved the defendant's sig-
nature to the agreement.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT (with whom was Mr. Platt) addressed
the Jury for the defendant, and after a humourous allusion to the
plaintiff's name, which he observed was that of the fresh water
shark, he contended that the plaintiff had been paid the full amount
of his contract. He denied that the defendant ever employed the
p!aintiff to sell his business at Furnival's Inn ; on the contrary Mr.
Pike was employed by Mr. Young to purchase the business for
him, and was paid by Mr. Young. He would also show by the
deed of partnership, which had been sent for, and which he hoped
to procure before the trial terminated, that only 1,000/. had been
paid by Mr. Flower, and that the other thousand was not to be
paid until the partnership realized a certain sum from the business.
One of the partners was called, who stated that he believed only
1,0001. had been paid by the defendant, but he could not state the
precise terms of the deed of partnership. Heard plaintiff say he
had received 651. from defendant on account.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, and in the course of his ad-
dress was interrupted by Sir James Scarlett, who applied to the
Court for permission to examine the witness who had been sent for
the deed of partnership. This was objected to by the Attorney-
General on the ground of irregularity, but the objection was over-
ruled by the Court.
The witness was examined, but the deed was not forthcoming.
The witness produced a bond to the same effect, but Sir James
Scarlett declined giving it in evidence, as it, was not legally per-
fected.
The Learned JUDGE left it to the Jury to say whether the 65/.
had been paid on account of the 1001. claimed, or whether 50/. of
that sum had been on account of another transaction alluded to, the
sale of the business in Furnival's-inn.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 35/.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 27.

LORRADAILE AND OTHERS V. BRICKWOOD AND WHITE

Mr. WIGRAM said that this was a motion on the part of
the plaintiffs for an injunction to restrain the defendant
Brickwood, as secretary to the Commissioners for the dis-
tribution of the West India Relief Fund, from advancing a
sum of 3,6001. to White, the other defendant, upon the
security of certain estates in the island of St. Vincent, of
which estates the plaintiffs, as assignees of John and Henry
Rucker, bankrupts, were mortgagees. _ _ _

Mr: COLERIDGE, for the Commissioners, said the Cour
ought to reject this application with costs.

Lord LiNDHURSTn iaid he did not think the Commis•
sioners had power to advance money except under the Act
He felt bound to grant the motion.