The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-14 00:00:00

GOODCHAP v. THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK

The plaintiff in this action is an accountant, and the de-
fendant his Serene Highness George Frederick Anuustus
William, Duke of Brunswick. The claim was for 191. lOs ,
for work and labour done. The defendant pleaded that he
was never indebted.
The plaintiff's attorney stated the case. In the year 1841
his Excellency Baron Audlaw, who was at the time Equerry
to his Serene Highness, applied to the plaintiff on the
subject of a bill of costs which had been sent in to his

Serene Highness by his solicitor, and stated that his Serene
Highness was desirous of having an analysis made of it,
showing how much money had been paid out of pocketand
what was the profit. Now, however absurd snch an idea
might be. and probably the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff
might ridicule the order, the absurdity of the order did not
justify the defendant in pleading that he was not indebted,
for his absurdity, if indeed it was such, was not to be gratified
at the expense or labour of others. The bill, it should be
observed, run over a long period of five or six
years, and the analysis itself occupied about
20 pages of foolscap paper. The plaintiff, with his clerks,
were engaged nearly three weeks in going through the bill
and preparing the analysis, and when it was completed it was
handsomely bound and sent to his Serene Highness for his
consideration. What his Highness's object in having it made,
or what use he ultimately applied it to, was not essential to
the present el:se. It would be proved the work was done,
that it occupied the time stated, and that the charge made was
fair and reasonable. It was impossible to conceive what the
defence would be, and he should, therefore, at present con-
fine himself to proving the case as he had stated it, and
afterwards answer any arguments which might be raised
against the present claim, which it appeared almost im-
possible to resist on any just grounds.
His Excellency Baron Audlaw was then called—ln 1841
and afterwards he was Equerry to his Serene Highness.
flaintiff was employed by him on behalf of his
Serene Highness to look over the bill of costs. Wit-
ness saw him several times on the subject and explained to
him that the Duke wished to have an analysis made, so that
he might judge whether the charges were fair. The bill was
a long bill and amounted to about 8001.: when the analysis
was made it was given to him—it was afterwards bound
dp and given to the Duke.
Cross-examined by Mr. THomas—Was not aware that
there was any fraud in a person not an attorney taking
an attorney's bill. Did not know that there was a taxing
officer appointed for the purpose.
By the UNDER-SHERIFF—Did not understand anything
about taxing. Gave the bill to plaintiff to look over, and
see whether the charges were fair.
The UNDER-SHERIFF—The question is, did the Duke know
what the analysis was for—whether it was a taxation ?
Mr. THOMAS—Was not the bill given to the plaintiff to see
whether any part of it could be taken off ? Witness—That
was an after opinion between myself and the Duke. The Duke
asked me to show it to some friend who understood it, to see
whether it was fair.
By
it is juror— Icatolllded. I
him to
whatever
asmakreecoamn
recommended
dt orto analysis,showit to
° plaintiff. I knew he was not an attorney, but believed he
was an honest man. I did not ask him exactly for his opi-
nion The abstract ran over eighteen or twenty sheets.
Wm. Simmons examined—Was employed by plaintiff to
assist in making the abstract. Was engaged between two and
three weeks ; some days for fourteen or sixteen hours. There
were three bills upwards of twenty sheets each. The analysis
consisted of three columns. The first the sum charged, the
next, subtractions or deductions, the third, the correct
charge, or what it ought to have been.
The UNDER-SHERIFF—Then it was a taxation? Witness
—I dun's say whether it was a taxation or not.
Plaintiff's Attorney—lt was only showing what was the
sum out of pocket and the total charge.
The UNDER-SHERIFF—The result of it was, that it was a
taxation of the bill.
Saunders was called, but merely asked if he confirmed
the last witness, and he answered in the affirmative.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. THOMAS, for the defendant, said this was evidently a
speculative action, brought against the Duke of Brunswick
merely because he was the Duke of Brunswick, and it was
known was possessed of considerable property. The plaintiff
had evidently deluded the Baron and the Duke, who were
fereigners, and did not understand the nature of the transac-
tion, but had, beyond all doubt, considered that the plaintiff
had the ability and power to settle the account and decide upon
its correctness. Could it be believed that this work had en-
gaged the attention of two or three men for 10 days look-
ing over an account, and ultimately ended in their framing
about eighteen or twenty sheets of abstract being almost as
long as the bill itself ? It was clear that the work itself could
not be in the least way beneficial to the defendant, but that
the whole of the proceeding was neither more nor less than a
gross imposition, which he felt the jury would never coun-
tenance by giving a verdict. In fact, there was no direc-
tion given which ought to bind the Duke or any other

person.
The UNDER-SHERIFF summed up. It had been truly
stated by the plaintiff's attorney, that however absurd the