The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-06 00:00:00

LOMAX V. JADIS.

This was an action on a bill of exchange, tried
before Mr. Baron Vaughan and a Special Jury at
the sittings after last term, when a verdict was found
for the plaintiff.
Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS now moved for a new trial.
The bill was drawn by the defendant on Lord Foley,
in May, 1831, at ten months' date, and Mr. Samuel
Sutton, the principal witness who proved the case,
and what consideration was given for the bill, ad-
mitted that he had it from November until the sth
of May, and that both the defendant Jadis and
Lord Foley on one occasion declared that the
bill had been stolen from them, and frequently
complained that they had been swindled out
of it. Sutton also said, " I handed over the
bill to Lomax ; knowing that the bill was
stolen, I was desirous not to pass it myself I"
A stronger case to call for strict proof of
consideration could not be. Now, Sutton said he
rook it of Gompertz; Gompertz might have been
called, but was not.

Lord LYNDHURST—Who is Mr. Gompertz ?
Mr. WILLIAMS—That, my Lord, we are very
sorry to say we can give you no information about.
Mr. Sutton said he gave him 9401. in cash and a
horse for this bill, but he could not tell us a word
about what he did, or where he lived; he knew no-
thing of him. Then, as to the reason for passing it
to Mr. Lomax after it was due arid had been disho-
noured, he stated that he had had large transactions
wiih him, that frequently he was owing him from
5,0001. to 6,0001., and at the passing of the bill the
balance was upwards of 3,0001. Well, what was
Mr. Lomax ? Oh, a gentleman of very large pro-
perty who took a fancy for adding to it by discount-
ing bills and no more could be got from Mr. Sut-
ton. Then, said the Learned Gentleman, I have
also to object to the notice given of the d'slionour
of the bill. Mr. Sutton, on whose shoulders rested
the whole case proved that at a certain hotel called
Hertford-house he wrote a letter to the defendant
giving him notice, but the contents he had forgotten;
it had been sent to the twopenny post. The plain-
tiff's case having been closed, he ( Mr. Willrains)
took an objection that the notice had not been suffi-
ciently proved as there was no evidence of its ever
having reached the office, when Mr. Sutton, who
was in Court, stood forward and said, " I have the
waiter here who took it to the twopenny post."
He begged the attention of the Court to the pro-

noun in-this remark, it clearly showed who was the
real plaintiff in the case, and here was the waiter,
of whom the plaintiff's Counsel knew nothing, kept
in the back ground, and only produced on an emer-
gency. He had been instructed to cross-examine
a little about that same Hertford-house, and into
the manner in which Mr. Sutton got his living,
and as it was, or rather might seem, a little imperti-
nent, he told him that he was so instructed, and
he hoped they would not quarrell. Mr. Sutton
said lie should be extremely glad to answer any of
his questions. He then asked him was he in any
business or profession. No. He (Mr. W.) might
then have been a little impertinent, for he sail,
" May I beg to be allowed to ask you how
you maintain yourself ?" Upon this Mr. Sut-
ton got extremely angry ; there was an imme-
diate explosion of the greatest indignation, and an
appeal to the Learned Judge whether he was bound
to answer such a question, which was not one that
ought to be put to a gentleman. However, he after-
wards proceeded to say, that he had money ; that a
great number of years ago he had been a clerk,
or something of that sort, in the Opera•house,
but since had had no settled employment. Mr.
Williams then asked him whether he was
the master or keeper of Hertford house ? No, he
was not, and though be was always there, he did
not know who was. Was it a gambling-house ?
He did not know what a gambling-house was, and
when he asked him whether Oxendon-street, where
he lived, was not a sporting neighbourhood, he said
he (Mr. W.) might go there to sport, but as for
him (the witness), he generally went to some
other neighbourhood. Now, the Court would