The Sun.
London, England, 1850-02-09 00:00:00

:PALS.

Mr. MARTIN stated the case to the jury. The
plaintiff had formerly lived in Manchester, but now
resided in London ; and betted largely at Tattersall's,
being known there as a sporting man. The defen-
dant, who was Fn officer of the Guards, went there
occasionally, and appeared to act for himself, and
without the control or supervision of any other per-
son. The plaintiff and defendant became acquainted
there, and the plaintiff, who did not disguise that he
occasionally discounted bills, was applied to in Octo-
ber last,, for the purpose of discounting a bill for an-
other officer in thQ Guards named Fox. The plaintiff
said he did not know Mr. Fox, but he did know Mr.
Wortley, and it was agreed that if Wortley became a
party to the bill the plaintiff would discount it.
This was done, and there could be little doubt that
the two young gentlemen divided the amount
between them. When the bill became due it was
dishonoured. It was now said that at that time the
defendant was not of age. It' so, although it was
very dishonourable to take the money and then plead
infancy, there was end of the case. The plaintiff felt,
and continued to feel, that he had been exceedingly
ill-treated, and he therefore determined to put the
defendant to the proof of infancy, that the case
might operate as a warning both to the defendant and
others like him against behaving in this dishonourable
manner.

Mr. Pyle, clerk to Cox and Greenwood, knew de-
fdnilant, who was some time ago an officer in the
Guards ; he had a banking account with Cox and
Greenwood. I do not believe this signature to be that
of the defendant.

Sir F. THESIGER said it was not written in the
ordinary way, and that circumstance had misled the
witness, but the bill was the defendant's.
. .

Cross-examined—The defendant was now in the
Guards, but in the line. There was a son of Lord
Wharncliffe in the Guards. The defendant was a
nephew of Lord Wharncliffe.
The other issues of notice of dishonour, &c., being
admitted. _ _

Sir F. THESIGER (with whom was Mr. Peacock)
addressed the jury for the defendant. He first ex-
pressed a desire to set the witness right with the jury,
by explaining that the difference between the form of
the signature to the bill and that of the defendant's
ordinary cheques was quite sufficient to make the
witness doubt the genuineness of the handwriting.
But, in fact, it was written by him ; but there were
circumstances which must occasion an action like this
to be resisted. He could feel compassion for a trades-
man who had honestly supplied goods, not of an ex-
travagant kind, to a young man, and was then met
with a plea of infancy, but he felt no compassion for
one who, by pandering to a youth's extravagance
and folly, obtained the means of setting up a claim
against him. In cases of thiN latter description it
was the family that was looked to for payment.
The circumstances, as stated by his Learned
Friend, Mr. Martin, were not such as would in-
duce any part of the defendant's family to assist the
defendant in satisfying this demand. If there had
been proof that any part of this bill had been re-
ceived by the defendant (of which there was none
whatever), the family would pay to the uttermost
farthing ; but all of them determined not to yield to
menaces in such a case, nor to be terrified by the en-
deavour to make the law a means of extorting the
money from them. That course bad been pursued on
this occasion. On the 12th of Dece:nber, 1849, the
plaintiff's attorney wrote a letter, in which he stated
that he understood it was the intention of the defend-
ant's friends to put a plea of infancy on the record,
that such a plea was not of the most honourable cha-
racter, and had the plaintiff been aware of the defend-
ant's infancy he never would have advanced one six-
pence on the bill ; he did not desire to press the
defendant, but to make himself secure, and that if
the defendant's uncles would guarantee the payment
of the money, with interest, he would wait, otherwise
he must proceed forthwith, and give publicity to a
transaction which might probably be beneficial to
other parties similarly situated. His (Sir F.Thesiger's)
excellent friend Mr. James Stuart Wortley, who was
the guardian of the defendant, took this course : he
was ready to pay the money which his nephew had ac-
tually received, but he resisted any further claim, and
this defence was avowedly his. The jury would see
what was the motive of the proceeding on the other
side. On the 17th of January, 1850, the plaintiff's
attorney gave a formal " notice to produce the de-
fendant on the trial of this cause, that the jury may
consider whether defendant is of that tender age
stated in the pleadings in this cause." There was but
one instance in which such a notice had been success-
ful in attaining its intended object, and that was in a
case in which a dentist brought an action to recover
the value of a set of false teeth. The charge was most
exorbitant, and the patient determined to resist it.
Just as the case was about to come to trial, the plain-
tiff gave notice to the defendant to appear, with his
1 teeth, and be examined in open court. The poor de-
fendant was so frightened at the idea of the exposure,
to which in real truth he was not called upon to
submit, for the Court would not enforce his appear-