The Sun.
London, England, 1821-10-20 00:00:00

LAY/. INTELLIGENCE.

PALACE. COURT-WHITETL&T,L, OCT. 1

r TIT. RIGHT HON. W. HUSKISSON, ALEXANDER
MILNE, GEORGE. CORNEILLE, AND GEORGE THOMPSON.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff; Charles Pitt, an
auctioneer and appraiser, against the Right Hon. Wm. Bus-
kisson, M. P., one of the commissioners appointed for the pur-
pose of carrying the new Street Act into effect; Alexander
Milne, secretary to these commissioners; Geo. Corneille, clerk;
and George Thompson, agent tinder the same ; to recover corn..
permation m damages for an alleged conspiracy to deprive the
plaintiff of employment in his abovernentioned capacity. In
1818 the plaintiff having preferred an indictment against the
present defendants and two others atthe Westminster Sessions,
it was removed by certiorari into the Court of King's Bench,
where it was tried before Lord" Ellenborough, and the de-
, fend:tilts were acquitted. In a couple of years after Wards, Mr.
Pitt brought an action on the same grounds in the Court of
Common Pleas, which terminated in a verdict for the defend-
ants; and now Mr. Pitt thought proper to try his chance a
third time, by bringing the present action in this Court, laying
his damages under 51., whereby he disabled his opponents
from removing it to a superior Court ; and varying the de=
fendarits, by which they were prevented from pleading the
former verdicts in bar. As the case has therefore been
twice before the public already, it is only necessary to
state generally that Mr. Pitt, who was his own advocate
on this as on the former occasions, in an address of
considerable length, accused the defendants of having in
the years 1815 and 1816 concerted measures, which they
carriedinto effect, to prevent the plaintiff from being employed
to procure cOmpensation for persons to be deprived of their
houses and premises under the new street act. He had been
employed in this way, he Said; since 181-1, and had procured
compensation for various persons to the amount of nearly
100,0001., until the commissioners, making a pretext of a
house in the Haymarket, for the purchase of 'which he had en-
tered into, an agreement with the proprietor, and for which he
had endeavoured to obtain as large a valuation as he could, en-
tered into a resolution to deprive him of employment and injure
his character -by any means in their power. The only way in which
he could conjecture that he had given-any offence, was by his
exertions to procure compensation for individuals, who being
only tenants at will, had thought that they were not entitled to
any. If he could have prochred the house in question for less'
than its value, and disposed of it the next day fOr a larger' sum,
he thought he had a right to do so : in like manner as a man
was at liberty, who purchased 'a horse for 51. to ask 5001. or
5,0001. for him the next moment. Mi. Pitt next alluded
to another circumstance at which the commissioners had
taken offence which related to the negotiation with a Mr.
Folsch, for his premises in Oxford-street ; and then took a
view of the law on conspiracy as laid 'down by Lord Mien-,
borough in Lord Cochrane's•case • and in that of Horn the
distiller, by Mr. Justice Park. de.entreated the jury to con-.
sider Isis case their own, and say what their feelings would be if
from -the receipt of 5001. or 10001. a year, they had been reduced
by the machinations of the defendants to that of hs. a week to
support their families. After many other observations, he con- ,
eluded by contending against the, validity of any defence '
grounded upon the circumstances of the defendants being pub-
lic servants ; Sir Robert Wilson had-been a public servant, and
yet that, had been no protection to him. He then called several
witnesses..

Geo. Brooks, a solicitor, in 1815 had a tenant of the name
of Parr, residing in Charles-street, St. James's-square ; and re.
collected-Mr. Milne and
.31r. Nash, the surveyor to the com-
missioners, coming to him in reference to Parr's claim for com-
pensatlon, and asking him to use his interference with Parr, to
get him to employ some other person than Mr. Pitt. He could
not say. whiel used those words, but he believed they both took
a part in the conversation.

James Hargrave, jun., recollected the defendant Thompson
coming to him in 1816, with reference to a similar, claim of his
father's, and saying, upon being told he was to treat with Mr.
Pitt, that his father was in bad hands ; he might have
had some compensation if he had, not employed Mr. Pitt; but
since he had, he should not have a farthing. The defendant
Corneille also called afterwards, and advised his father to recon-
sider what he was about in employing %1 r. Pitt, and to recol-
lect the power he had to contend with. His father, however,
was only tenant at will, and the Commissioners having pur.
chased his landlord's interest, had served his father with notice
• to quit.
Elizabeth 111-eyres proved a similar interference with her, on
the part of the two last mentioned defendants, with respect to
her having emplOyed the plaintiff:
Thomas Walker stated that Corneille had told hini that NITS.
Meyres had done wrong in employing Mr. Pitt.
James Burion, Esq. proved two letters written by Mr. Hus-
kisson to the plaintiff, in one of which he stated, that he should
not be accepted as referee in future. The witness had been ap-
pointed referee on the part of the Crown on some occasions ;
and in one case, he and Mr. Pitt
.agreell upon a valuation of
1,1301., where the plaintiff first named a sum of upwards of
two thousand pounds.
After calling one or two other witnesses, whose testimony is
not interesting, the plaintiff closed his case ; and
Mr. THESIGER stated that of the defendants to the Jury.
He commented in severe terms upon the conduct of the plain-
tiff, and strongly:reprobated the third attempt, the two former
having failed, to calumniate the characters of the defendants,
particularly that of Mr. Huskisson, for which, even upon the
plaintiff's own shewing, there was not the shadow of a pretext.
He contended that his clients not only had a right, but were
bound, as servants of the public, in the correct discharge of
their duty, to decline treating with 'Mr. Pitt as a referee, after'
having sent circular letters about, soliciting to be appointed a
general referee,- and particularly after his conduct respecting the:
house in the Haymarket; which, after having purchased it him-
self for 850 L, he represoted to the Commissioners as still in
the possession of the former proprietor, a feather-merchant;
and, on his behalf, . demanded 2,000 _guineas for it. After.=
address of very great length from the Learned Counsel (for
which we have not space), and the examination of several
witnesses in support of it, Mr. Pitt replied; and the Court
charged the Jury, who, after a few moments' deliberation,
found a verdict for the defendants.
The trial continued till past nine o'clock at night. •