The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-16 00:00:00

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a Special Jury.)
isCULLY T. INGRAM.
This action, which was heard some time since, and a ver-
dict given for the plaintiff, came on for rehearing in accord-
ance with the rule granted for a new trial, this morning.
Mr. Edwin James, Q.C., appeared for Mr. Scully, and
Mr. Bovill, Q.C., for Mr. Ingram.
The following short summary will bring the whole of the
circumstances connected with the case back to the recollec-
tion of our readers :
The action was brought in the first instance by the
plaintiff, Mr. Vincent Scully, an Irish barrister, a Q.C.,
and formerly M.P. for the county of Cork against Mr.
Herbert Ingram, the proprietor of the Illustrated London
News and M.P. for Boston, to recover compensation in
damages for representing that he (the defendant) had pur-
chased an estate called Castle Hyde, in the county of Cork,
from the late John Sadlier. Mr. Vincent Scully (the plain-
tiff) was acquainted with the late John Sadleir, whose
gigantic frauds are already known to the public,
and who terminated his career by suicide on
Hampstead-heath. In 1851 Sadleir was indebted to
Scully in the sum of £9,000 for money lent,
and Scully having by him ready money to the
amount of £lO,OOO was desirous of investing the whole in
the purchase of an estate in Ireland, through the Encum-
ii bared Estates Court. The.property of Castle Hyde, in the
county of Cork, was put up for sale in December, 1851, and
Sadleir, by direction of Scully, purchased it for £19,425.
Sadleir bought it in his own name, in trust, for Mr. Thos.
Ayres, of Bath, representing to the plaintiff it would be
better to re. sell in the market if it appeared that the
Purchaser was an English gentleman. Afterwards the
plaintiff tried to get his £9,000 from Sadleir, but failing to
do so, he authorised him to re-sell the estate, and Sadleir
wrote to him telling him that he had got a purchaser at a
profit of £6OO in the person of Mr. Herbert Ingram, the
defendant. The plaintiff consented to this arrangement,
and expected that the purchase would be completed. Sub-
sequently the plaintiff was persuaded by Sadleir to start as
a candidate for the county of Cork, but in order to give him
a status in the county he was desirous to possess some
landed property within it. Sadleir having told him
that his friend, Mr. Ingram, w‘eild readily re-sell the estate,
the plaintiff entered into negotiations with him on the sub-
ject, but not being able to come to terms the negotiations
were broken off. After Sadleir's death, Mr. Scully, from
certain circumstances, alleged that Mr. Ingram never pur •
chased the estato at all, but that he (plaintiff) was virtually
owner of it, and could have asserted his rights by moving
in the Encumbered Estates Court in the usual way. It
was also discovered that Sadleir had deeply mortgaged the
property, so that as far as the plaintiff was concerned the
estate was irretrievably gone, and compensation was sought
in damages against Mr. Ingram, the plainti ff, for lending him-
self, as alleged by the learned counsel at the trial, to the
misrepresentation that he was owner of the estate, when, in
fact, he never had any interest whatever in it, and a verdict
wee given for the plaintiff—damages, £3OO. When Mr.
Bovill obtained the rule calling on the plaintiff to show
cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new
trial had, he stated that at the trial at Guildhall there
was little evidence to show bow Mr, Ingram could have
been benefitted by the alleged misrepresentation, or what
motive he could have had in making it. The jury came into
court twice, and said that they could not agree ; and it
appeared that half, or a certain number of them, were not
prepared to find that the defendant was an accomplice with
Sadleir in the fraud. The transaction took place in May,
1853, and at the trial a mass of correspondence was pro-
duced by the plaintiff for the first time, and the Lord Chief
Justice adjourned the cause early on the first day, that Mr.
Bovill might have an opportunity of perusing it. Before
the trial the defendant' applied for leave to administer in-
terrogatories to Mr. Scully, which was refused ; and the
defendant never received the usual notice to inspect and
admit these letters, which were for the first time brought to
his notice at the trial. It appeared that Mr. Scully was
desirous that Mr. Ingram should have every information that
existed in connection with the case, and it was afterwards
discovered, on examining the papers produced by the plain-
tiff, but which the defendant's counsel had no opportunity
of examining at the time, that one of them contained an
extract dated June, 1853 (the month after Mr. Ingram
deolined to have anything more to do with the estates,
taken from the books' of Messrs. Sadleir, Morrogh, and
Kennedy, the solicitors of John Sadleir and of Mr. Scully,
to the following effect
"John Sadleir, Esq. (Castle Hyde Estat,„;), June, 1853.
"Instructions to prepare outline of tb e title to this es-
tate, comprising the manor and land. of Castle Hyde, er
'
Carregreen, Eddy, Coolmackey,
oolore, Knockananing.
and Farranelahessey, to lay betoreMr Scully.
to" Perusing original paten'. of 1611, andi other. documents,
to enable us to prepare ~,utline.
"Draft outline of seven pages post.
Copy,
"
" Attendt, g Mr. Scully therewith.
Ins~-actions for deed of conveyance from Mr. E.
Morrogh.
" A trustee to Wm. Dargan,
£2,600. Esq., in consideration of
" Draft deed, one skin.
" Engrossing.
" Stamp, £125, afterwards cancelled.
" Attending Mr. Morrogh when he executed the same.
" The arrangements being broken off.
" Attending to cancel stamp."
Mr. Bovill contended that as Mr. Ingram had abandoned
the purchase in May, 1853, and Mr. Scully in the June fol-
lowing was dealing with the estate as his own, the Court
accordingly granted a rule for the present proceedings.
Mr. Edwin James, at great length, entered into the whole
transaction on the part of Mr. Ingram, when
The Lord Chief Justice asked whether it was not possible
the case could be settled out of court. It appeared that
nothing dishonourable was intended to be imputed by Mr.
Scully against Mr. Ingram or by Mr. Ingram against Mr.
Scully. The case appeared simply
a pecuniary dispute, and
such being the case, he thought there was a mode by which
the difference between the two gentlemen could be settled.
Mr. James said that Mr. Scully was anxious that kverY •
thing connected with the case should be rigidly inquired
into.

The Lord Chief Justice said no charge of fraud was
made. If there had been he should not have advised .the
course he did.
Mr. Bovill, for Mr. Ingram, said his client was perfectly
ready to meet any charge made against him. After the
verdict that had been passed against him, it would be the
height of indiscretion for him to advise anything but a
public investigation.
The Lord Chief Justice asked whether it was not pos-
sible for Mr. Ingram to have been deceived by Ssdleir as
well as Mr. Scully. He did not see why Mr. Ingram
should not be as much inclined to settle this dispute as Mr.
Scully, especially as there was nothing dishonourable ad-
vanced against him. If the learned counsel meant to im-
pute fraud, then it was imperative that there should be a
public and not a private investigation.
Mr.. Bovill said whether a charge of fraud or no fraud
was made, he was perfectly ready to meet it. Mr. Ingram
felt it necessary that every inquiry should be made into
the whole transaction.
The Lord Chief Justice would not, under the circum-
stances, make any other remark.
Mr. Bovill thanked his lordship for his suggestion, and
the case was about to proceed. when a consultation took
place between the counsel for both parties. After it had
gone on for some minutes,
Mr. James asked the learned judge 'whether they might
trespass on his time for a few minutes.
The Lord Chief Justice replied in the affirmative and
quitted his seat.
All parties then left the court, After an absence of about
a quarter of an hour.
The Lord Chief Justice took his seat on the bench and
said he had considered the care, and he could not see that
there was any question of personal dishonour involved in it,
and it was better that it should be settled amicably in pre-
ference to fighting it out. Both gentlemen, it appeared
to him, had been placed in a false position by the machine
tions of a person whose unhappy end they were all ac
quainted with. He was glad all imputations of dishonour
had been withdrawn, and that the subject in dispute was to
be settled in an amicable way as befitted the position of
both parties.
Mr. Bevil' said ho felt great pleasure that the proceedings
had terminated as they had. He never intended to impute
anything dishonourable to his opponent.
The Lord Chief Justice expressed his gratification at the
announcement.
Mr. Scully, the plaintiff, who had during the morning
occupied a seat near Mr. James, rose, and addressing the
bench, said—My lord, may I be allowed to make one re-
I mark ? I have left the case entirely in the hands of my