The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-10 00:00:00

wrote and said I would rather have cash. He
gave me a ..cheaue_a long time afterwards for £3OO.
I was not to provide any money for the purchase
of the Kingstown estate. I became security for
him at the end of December, 1852, or January,
1853. The security was given to the London and
County Bank for £90,000. Ten gentlemen joined
in it. The bank told me that I would only be
liable for my shore. I have told you all the trans-
actions I had with Sadleir. I wrote a letter to
him on the 4th of December, 1854, in which I
said, "I have not a pound just now. If my ac-
ceptance for £l,OOO will do, I will take that amount
of capital in the mines." He had asked me again
to lend him some money. I refused afterwards to
have anything to do with the mines. They were
German mines. I got £3OO from Sadleir as my
share of the profit on the transaction, in respect of
the security given the bank. I had never ac-
cepted bills for the accommodation of Sadlier for
more than £2,000 at a time. I should say I did
not lend my name to him to the extent in all
of £20,000. I swear I never had any accommoda-
tion from him. When Scully called upon me at
Loudwater he said he- came about the estate. I
don't know that I asked him a price. I did not ask
him £25,000 for it. I said, " Make your own pro-
posal, and .I will forward you an answer.". I meant
at the time to send the proposal to Sadleir, because
I bad not sufficient Tower over the estate without
consulting. him. I did not discuss with him the
terms of the paper. I told him to write -what he
liked, and. .I would consider it. I gave him the
paper on which he copied that document. Sadleir
told me to name a price for the estate. He men-
tioned £25,000. I don't think I gave the price to
Mr. Scully. £25,000 is the sum mentioned in the
memorandum drawn up by Mr. Scully. I sent the
memorandum to Sadleir. I did not see Sadleir, as
far as I recollect, before the conversation I have
mentioned took place at the Reform Club. I don't
remember calling upon him at the London and
County Bank on the day before, and being with
him an hour., That is the only answer I can give.
At:the interview at the Reform Club I won't swear
I did not ask Scully more than £25,000, or a sum
of £28,000, but I might have done so. I don't re-
member discussing with Scully at Loudwater about
his getting me an equally eligible property. Mr.
Mahoney, on my solemn oath, mentioned £75,000
as Mr. Scully's demand upon me. I can remember
that. When I went to Ireland I don't recollect
going in the same carriage with the directors of the
land company.
By Mr. Bovill—To none of these matters has my
attention been called from 1853 until the present
time. Mr. Sadleir paid me all the money he owed
me. I had a few shares in the London and
County Bank. I bought them myself shortly be-
fore Sadleir's death, and I sold them soon after-
wards. At Loudwater I gave Mr. Scully a few
sheets of note paper. I never, to my knowledge,
saw a rough draft he made, nor did I discuss it
with him.
Mr. David Mahoney called and examined by Mr.
James.—l am a solicitor in Dublin, and succeeded
myfather, the late Pierce Mahony. When I called
upon Mr. Ingram respecting Mr. Scully's claim I
did not say he claimed £75,000. I mentioned no
sum.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bovill—l told him that
Mr. Scully was a sufferer toa very large amount.
I .depend upon my recollection since 1856 in say-
ing that I did not mentionto Mr. Ingram £75,000.
The first time I heard of that sum was when you
made your speech. I am confirmed in my belief
by the letter which I wrote to Mr. Scully within
two hours of my interview with Mr. Ingram. (The
letter was here produced.) There is no mention of
£75,000 in the letter.
Mr. Bovill then summed up the evidence for the
defence. He said Mr. Scully, the plaintiff, had
possessed a great advantage over his client, being
skilled in the practice of courts of justice, and able
to give his evidence with the greatest ease and
composure., On the other hand, Mr. Ingram,
without this advantage, was subjected to a eross-
examination by Mr. James, which was enough to
frighten and confuse any witness. How, after the
lapse of six years, could a man, called upon for the
first time to speak to a particular matter, tell
whether he had been to his banker's or solicitor's
on a certain day ? Yet Mr. James said, " Now,
upon your oath, did you not call at the London
and County Bank on a certain day—mind, an at-
tendance book is kept at the bank," as if he really
meant to produce it, and confront Mr. Ingram with
the written entry of a particular call he made six
years ago, which if he did make, had escaped his
recollection. Mr. Ingram had not risen into im-
portance in a day, he had long been extensively
engaged in business, and his history was well
known from his birth upwards ; and although the
plaintiff had every opportunity of inquiring into
his character, he had not attempted to impeach his
honour or veracity in any other transaction. It
could never be said of him that he ever did a dis-
honest action, or defrauded any man of a single
farthing. Putting these facts in the scale against
Mr. Scully's volubility and powers of speech, he
asked them to discriminate between truth and
falsehood, being satisfied that on a careful con-
sideration of the evidence they would acquit the
defendant of the charge of fraud which was in-
volved in the action.
Mr. James then replied on the whole case for the
plaintiff—l quite concur with my learned friend
that this action is in the nature of a criminal
charge against Mr. Ingram, and that it ought to
be established by the clearest evidence. The evi-
dence of the defendant is quite consistent with
that of the plaintiff, and makes out no defence at
all. I ask you if there is any reasonable doubt in
the minds of any of the jury to give the defendant
the benefit of that doubt, but I say there can be
none. The plaintiff's case is that he placed implicit
confidence in Sadleir, and the whole object of this
scheme was to keep from him the estate which
remained in Sadleir. Frauds like this cannot be
perpetrated alone by one party, and the defendant
was just the person that Sadleir would seek outito
lend himself to him. And the defendant did lend
himself as the ready instrument of Sadleir. How
could the defendant stand up in the face of docu-
ments and say that be did not represent himself to
Mr. Sadleir as the purchaser of the estate, and the
seller to the plaintiff? Look at his position with
Sadleir; he was engaged in various speculations
and accommodation bills with him, and took
from him £3OO for lending himself as a security
with others for £90,000 on Sadleir's account. Was
not he, then, the sort of man Sadleir would select
as his instrument ? When he asked the plaintiff
£25,000 for the estate on the Sunday, and on the
Wednesday asked £28,000, no doubt the plaintiff
became disgusted, and never spoke to him after-
wards when they met. What was it done for ? To
save Sadleir from being called on to repay the
£9,000, and to divide any profit that might be
obtained by a resale. It is a ease which for the
ends of justice has been brought to light by the
discovery of these papers, and I can well under.
stand how it came upon the defendant by surprise :-
" ___ I am amn'ed with wonder
That I, who never left a track
In all the dark and secret winding to my wealth,

Should be thus discovered, defeated, and made void."
If you find, gentlemen, that the defendant has lent
himself to one of those great [frauds which have
disgraced the character of this mercantile com-
munity, do your duty and return a verdict accord-
ingly.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, said this was,
indeed, a very serious case. It demanded, had re-
ceived, and would yet receive their most deliberate
attention. A charge was brought against the defen-
dant, a gentleman who had hitherto maintained a
mostrespectable position in society, which imputed
to him fraud of a serious kind. The action was founded
on fraud, and unless they believed Mr. Ingram's con-
duct was fraudulent, he was entitled to their vcr-

•
diet. The charge against him was that he repre•
sented to the plaintiff that he had bought the estate
of Castle Hyde from Sadleir. Now unless they
believed that the defendant made that representa-
tion, knowing it to be untrue, and with the fraudu-
lent intention of deceiving and injuring the plaintiff,
he was entitled to their verdict; but if they be-
lieved that he knew it to be untrue, and that he
made it with the intention of deceivingand injuring
plaintiff, and thereby damnyfying him, the plaintiff
was entitled to such damages as they thought he
could fairly claim. The jury should clearly under-
stand that nothing which was said or written by
Sadleir was evidence against Mr. Ingram, and it
was only by-clear evidence against Mr. Ingram
personally that he was in any danger of any ver-
dict being found against him. With regard to
Sadleir there could be no doubt that he was a most
unprincipled and wicked man, and that he had de-
ceived. Mr. Scully. It was also possible that he
might have deceived Air. Ingram, and unless they
believed that Mr. Ingram made the representation
to Mr. Scully, believing it to be untrue, for the
purpose of deceiving him, he was not liable to this
action. Lord Campbell then read over the evidence
of the plaintiff and defendant, and told the jury
that their verdict would depend entirely upon the
credit which they attached to the evidence of Mr.
Scully on the one part, and on that of Mr. Ingram
on the other. He owned that if Mr. Ingram had
purposely lent himself to such a fraud
discover
was here..
imputed him, it was very difficultit
certainly to
motive, but at the same time dis covde.rd
ap-
pear that he was very desirous to represent himsel
as the owner of the estate. In the event of their
finding a verdict for plaintiff there would: be the
question of damages, which presented some diffi-
culty. In the first place the defendant said that in
consequence of the misrepresentation of the defend-
ant lie was prevented from pressing Sadleir for the
payment of the £9,ooo,but considering the desperate