The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-15 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. Jan. 14.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
SCULLY V. INGRAM.
The following is a more complete report of this
case than we were enabled to give in our impression
of yresterday :
Mr. Bovill (with whom was Mr. Huddleston and.
Mr. Prentice) moved for a rule calling on the plain-
tiff to show cause why the verdict found m his
favour, with £3OO damages, should not be set aside
and a new trial granted. The action was brought
by the plaintiff, who was formerly member of Par-
liament for the county. of Cork, against Mr.
Ingram, one of the members for Boston, to recover
damages for making a false representation to the
plaintiff, that he (the defendant) was the owner of
an estate called " the Castle Hyde Estate," in the
county of Cork, with a view to deceive and injure
the plaintiff, whereby the plaintiff was deceived
and injured, and prevented from obtaining pay-
ment of a debt of £9,000, due to him from John
Sadleir, and abstained from pressing the said John
Sadleir for payment of the said debt, and so lost
the payment. The plaintiff also alleged other
damage—viz., that he had lost the profit which he
would have derived from purchasing and reselling
the estate, but the learned judge who presided at
the trial (Lord Campbell) thought that both the
claims of daniage were rather circuitous and remote,
and it was clear that the jury, in giving only £3OO
as damages, did not recognise the plaintiff's claim.
Lord Campbell said that, if the learned counsel
could show that, on either ground, damages could
not be awarded, the verdict would be impeached.
Mr. Bovill said it was clear the jury could not

agree.
Lord Campbell said he haol told the jury they
ought not to find for the plaintiff, unless they were
convinced that the defendant made the untrue re-
presentation, and knew it to be false, and did that
with the intentionto deceive and injure the plaintiff.
Mr. Bovill said that, looking at the plaintiff's
claim of damages, £lO,OOO, it was clear that the
jury, though nct agreed, had agreed to give the
plaintiff a verdict for some small sum.
Lord Campbell said the jury might have doubted
whether a larger sum had been lost by the plain-
tiff, and whether he would have made a larger sum
by the sale of the estate.
Mr. Bovill thought there must have been a com-
promise, or the jury would not have given the sum
of £3OO as damages. However, this was not to the
defendant a question of money.
Lord Campbell—lt is a question of infinite im-
portance to the defendant.
Mr. Bovill said it was to the defendant a ques-
tion of his position in society, and the character of
his life, and he came before the Court with affida-
vits, and on them, as well as on the facts proved at
the trial, he claimed a second investigation. The
defendant had represented his native town in two
Parliaments, and he produced affidavits—
Lord Campbell said he doubted whether the
Court ought to receive such affidavits.
Mr. Bovill said the Court would admit affidavits
to this extent. The defendant had been cross-exa-
mined as to a correspondence which had taken place
in 1853, and as to transactions which tended to
disparage him, and to produce an impression un-
favourable to his character. There was a letter
which referred to a bill of £2,000. The defendant
was asked whether he had not accepted accommo-
dation bills for John Sadleir to the extent of
£20,000, and a letter was shown him, dated in
January, 1853, which referred to a bill of £2,000.
He looked at the letter, and, not being able to re-
collect any transaction in January, 1853, he de-
clined to pledge his oath as to the acceptance of a
bill at that time, or to pledge his oath positively as
to any of those acceptances. It turned out, how-
ever, that he was now ab'e to give a clear and
distinct detail of all his transactions with Sadleir.
The letter was dated " January, 1853 ;" but it
turned out that it was a mistake for " January,
1854," and the defendant could now pledge his oath
that he had had no transaction with Sadleir of
£20,000, or to that amount, and he had given a detail
of all his transactions with him. He had now ex-
plained everything, which, in his confusion, he was
un able to explain at the trial,when he was under cross-
examination. The learned counsel' here read a long
extract from the defendant's affidavit to that effect.
The fact was, that because the defendant was con-
scientious, and would not swear that the transac-
tions suggested had not existed, their existence, as
was commonly the case, was assumed. The learned
counsel here read another long extract from the
defendant's affidavit explanatory of his dealings
with Sadleir, with a view to rebut the suggestion
that the defendant had had the dealings suggested on
his cross-examination. The learned counsel then
referred to the fact, that at the time referred to
John Sadleir was in highrepute ; he was a member
of Parliament, one of the Lords of the Treasury,
chairman of the London and County Bank, and
had the full confidence of all with whom he asso-
ciated. At that time the defendant was advocating
a proposed railway to Boston, the town which he
represented, and he was anxious to obtain Mr. Sad-
leir, a Lord of the Treasury, as one of the directors.
In order to- induce him to become a director, he
gave him a -guarantee against all risk, and the
learned counsel contended that that was only a na-
tural thing for him to do under the circumstances.
Lord Campbell here retired from the court for a
few minutes, and
Mr. Bovill proceeded to state the grounds on
which he moved for a new trial. The first was,
as to the mode in which the question was
left to the jury, that if the misrepresentation
was false, the plaintiff was entitled to the ver-
dict, and the jury must then consider the damages.
They ought to have been told that the damage must
result from the misrepresentation. Secondly, there
was no evidence that the damage resulted entirely
from the alleged misrepresentation. Thirdly, it
was uncertain under which head the jury had given
the damages. Fourthly, if the plaintiff could not
recover on all the heads, he could not recover on
Lord Campbell said he had made a note that he
had told the jury that they ought to find for the
plaintiff if they were convinced that the defendant
had made the representation complained of, that it
was false to his knowledge, that he made it with
intent to- deceive and injure the plaintiff, and that
the plaintiff was deceived and injured by it. As
to damages, his lordship said he had told the jury
they could only give the plaintiff damages for 'the
pecuniary loss which was the direct or probable
consequence of the misrepresentation. There was
evidence, indeed, that the plaintiff had been induced
not to take proceedings against Sadleir, and that
otherwise be might have become the owner of the
estate, and might have derived a profit from it ; but
there was also evidence that he never could have
bought it.
Mr. Bovill—Your lordship told the jury to say
upon which of the two heads of damage they found
this verdict, but the jury neglected to do as sug-
gested.
Lord Campbell—lf one is found that is enough
for you.
Mr. Bovill said he had a fourth ground fer a new
trial—viz., that the verdict was against the evi-
dence as to the false representation, the fraudulent
intent, the plaintiff's acting on the representation,
his being prejudiced by it, and also as to damages.
There was also a fifth ground, of surprise, and facts
which had been discovered since the trial. The
learned counsel here read from the defendant's affi-
davit an explanation of the circumstances under
which in Nov., 1852, he lent Mr. Sadleir the sum
of £2,000. It was only one single transaction, and
the money was repaid in December. The defendant
was asked whether he had not been security for
Mr. Sadleir to the extent of £90,000, and the
learned counsel was proceeding to read from the
defendant's affidavit his explanation of this part
of his cross-examination, when
Lord Campbell said that, although he might de-
sire to hear the defendant's explanation, he ought
to avoid establishing a precedent which might be
inconvenient.
Mr. Justice Crompton said it was enough for the
learned counsel to state that he had the affidavit,
if Mr. James should seek to cast any imputation on
the character of the defendant.
Mr. Bovill was quite contented, if he was allowed
to present the defendant to the Court as a gentle-
man whose character was unimpeached, except by
the attack now made upon him. It appeared that
in the year 1851 the plaintiff had bid for an estate.
Lord Campbell—He was the purchaser of it; he
was the highest bidder, by his agent.
Mr. Bovill said that Mr. Sadleir, as the plaintiff's
confidential agent, went into the Encumbered Es-
tates Court, and bought two lots for the plaintiff,
for £19,000. The plaintiff provided the deposits
of £l,OOO out of his own money. But, instead of I
declaring the plaintiff or Sadleir to be the purchaser, I
the purchase was declared to be made in the name
of Mr. Ayre, who was the plaintiff's uncle. The
reason for this was because they Wanted to sell the
estate again at:a profit, ae appeared by the letter of
Mr. Sadleir, which the learned counsel read. Not-
withstanding this, the plaintiff had ventured to
swear that he did not buy the estate to sell it again.
He said he had a sum of £ll,OOO, and £9,000 aving;
to him by Sadleir, and that if Sadleir repaid him he
should have paid for the estate. In Feb., 1852, Sad- 1
leir represented to the plaintiff that he had resold
the estate, and there was a letter from the plaintiff
to Sadleir, that if he could not pay the £9,000, he
had better resell the estate, even at a loss. Sadleir
then told the plaintiff that he had resold the estate
to the defendant, Mr. Ingram, for £6OO profit, and
he repaid to the plaintiff his £l,OOO and gave him
£3OO, being one-half of the profit. The whole of
that was a fiction on the part of Sadleir, for he had
not, in fact, sold the estate to the defendant. The

one.

estate was to be conveyed by the Encumbered
Estates Court in July, 1852, and Sadleir proposed
to the, plaintiff that it should be conveyed to E.
Morrough, plaintiff's cousin, who was brother of
Mr. Morrough, a solicitor, who was Sadleir's part-
ner in the firm of Sadleir, Morrough, and Kennedy.
That was accordingly done, and the estate was in
July, 1852, conveyed, with Mr. Ayre's concurrence,
to Mr. E. Murrough. All that was done with the
plaintiff's knowledge.
Lord Campbell said the plaintiff admitted he was
aware of that conveyance, and said it was conveyed
to Mr. Morrough as trustee for him (plaintiff).
Mr. Bovill said that plaintiff said he believed the
defendant had paid the whole of the purchase-
money, though he was found in July, 1852, privy to
its being conveyed to his cousin, his own nominee.
It was in Aug. or Sept., 1852, Sadleir told defen-
dant he had bought an estate in Ireland, called the
Castle Hyde estate, which would just suit defendant,
and he showed him a description of a beautiful
mansion, with a park and river likely to captivate
any gentleman who saw it. Sadleir offered it to the
defendant for £22,000 or £22,500, and told defen-
dant it was so good a property that he would not
allow him to refuse it. Sadleir afterwards told de-
fendant if anybody asked the price of the estate he
was to say £25,000. The plaintiff then applied to
defendant to purchase the estate, he having been
told in Feb. 1852, that he (defendant) was the
owner (though he was subsequently pressing Sadleir
for his money in order that he himself might have
it and pay for it), and in Feb. 1853, he (plaintiff)
said he went and. saw the defendant on the subject.
About that time Sadleir had told the plaintiff the
defendant was willing to sell it, and had sent a me-
morandum on the subject, which, however, plaintiff
would not sign. The defendant denied that he had
anything to do with such memorandum, which he
had never seen, for it was entirely a fiction.
Lord Campbell here read the evidence given by
the plaintiff on this part of the case, and
, Mr. Bovill readthe defendant's affidavit in expla-
nation. The only false representation alleged to
have been made by the defendant was that he had
said he was the owner of the estate, when Sadleir
had given him the option of becoming the purchaser
at £22,000 or £22,500, the defendant could not tell
which. In one sense he was the purchaser, though
he had not signed any contract, for he had the option.
Mr. Justice Hill—lt was only offered to the de-
fendant as a residence, jot to sell again for his sown
profit. _ _ .

Lord Campbell said that according to the plain-
tiff's evidence, which his lordship read, the defend-
ant, at the Reform Club, had acted as owner, and
as competent to make what terms he pleased.
Mr. Bovill explained that it was not left to the
Jury to say whether the defendant had represented
himself as the owner; but it was assumed that the
representation made was false, because there was
no conveyance. In May, 1853, the defendant for
the first time went and saw the estate, and on the
advice of Mr. Powell, the surveyor to the Board of
Trade, who reported that the mansion would require
£lO,OOO to be laid out on repairs, he (defendant)
declined the purchase, and told Sadleir so. The
learned counsel then came to the question of sur-
prise, and read from a paper produced at the trial
,an extract from the books of Messrs. Sadleir, Mor-
rough, and Kennedy, which ran as follows :

" 1853. June.—lnstructions to prepare outline of the
title to the-estate comprising the manor and lands of Castle
Hyde, or Carrigeen, &c., to lay before Mr. Scully. "

" Attending Mr. Scully therewith.
" 1853. Juue.—lnstructions for the deed of conveyance
from Mr. E. Morrogh, a trustee, to W. Dargan, Esq., in
consideration of £25,000.

. . . .
" Attending to Mr. Morrogh when he executed same.
" The arrangement being broken off, attending to ca.nce]
stamp."

That extract showed that the plaintiff must have
known in June, 1853, that the defendant was not
the owner of the estate. After some further obser-
vations the learned counsel concluded by urging the
Court, upon the grounds stated, to grant the de-
fendant the rule now prayed.
Lord Campbell said the learned counsel might
take a rule to show cause why the verdict should
not be set aside upon the grounds stated in the affi-
davits, that there had been no damage, and that the
hury had not distinguished on what ground they
ad found the damages, and on the question whe-
ther either would support the damages, but not on
the ground of misdirection.
Mr. Bovill—And also on the grouhd that the
verdict was against the evidence ?
Mr. JusticeCrompton—On all the points except
the misdirection, for it was quite clear there had.
been no misdirection.—Rule nisi granted.