The Sun.
London, England, 1826-01-17 00:00:00

COURT OF KIN 'S 'BENCH, JAL. In.

(Sittings Nytirs Lord 'Chief Jitstice Annorr and Special
Juries.)
HO L LIDA Y v. SIGEL, T HE ELDER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a gentleman of
fortune, against the defendant, who is an attorney, to recover
the sun) of 300/., being the amount of &Bank of England note,
dated 10th May, UM, and 'numbered IMO, which it was al-
leged on the part of the plaintiff, that he had loet,.und that the
defendant found it, and applied it to hitt own purposes. 'rho
di:14;11(1ton pleaded Not t;ttilty, whereupon issue was joined.
Mr. :ieettl.f:TT stated the cane to the Jury, and by the evi.
device which be celled in heliport of that statetnent, it appeared
that both the plaintiff and defendant were sporting men, and
well known on till turf. That 'on the aa of June,• 1023, the
plaintiff' fleeing that morning received.; 3,0g01. his
bankers,' Messrs. March' and Co.,' consisting of four 5001.
notes, end some small notes, intended) at Tattersall's, It
being one of the great nettling tlnytl there, :and paid • away
three of the fnur lerge notes.. Ile ahorelee, after discovered
that up had lust the other 5004 and iintnediately intbrined
his attorney, 31r. Lee, what,i4Viii Ago, • nt'Tattersall's, of
the circumstance, and cominite4l hitn on the 4tep4 he shunt&
take to recover it, when thatgentleman, on lteitring Opt Air.
Holliday did not knew either therittinber or the 'date orate
note, advised lam to keep the matter quiet'for a little while, so
' that the person into whose ltanda the note tuighehave got Might
not be so far put upon his guard its tti defer nceSentiog, it at the
' Bank,. or of paying it away So as to atinifilif being taken
to the Bank in the course of a short tiate.e:trtiit guivide was
.followeti, and nothing inure was heard of the alteitilLthaensue
ingmonth of November,'when .31r. Lee pet abatet tracing it
out ; and having ascertained that it bad been' Jilt% ttibrtutik' of
England by Messrs. Hamann and Co. the litUtkerse application
' was immediately made to them upon the ,sulimat,,,entLitewits;
then discovered that the note hail been paid trito.their Bonds
on the ]oth of June by the defendant, hut, thtitllttiiitiOnet en-
tered to his account because lie (the tietembitell flrettletlite
note exchanged for other notes, end then naitkibeeptdOtily
of the money, and took away with Aim the jot tettier
2001. Upon these, cireurngt ances be.Stig'• ;efeettitiiiicatede'
31r. Lee forthwith applied to the defeeidentlifpr , to nil eniii.
telligence respecting the plaintiff eljejffe'reutal the
defendant that he was cotne to hitn-ablidi a 'mut. bank note.;
which had been lust by the plaintiff: filetdefendant :laid Its
knew nothing of any such rtie, and Baked why ill r. Leo
' plied to him about it? Mr. Lee then told hint or the result of
' his inquiries tit his (the defencianet) 'fetid:ere,' and observed'
diet the defendant muet'know ,seinething.of the note. Where.
upon the defendant produced his pass.beqlr, to show that n
note for heft/. had been entered to his account.
On Mr. Lee'A cross-examination, he admitted that the de.
fendant immediately afterwards ohserved,e, 0, now vott,'lnen.
. don it, you bring it to toy recollection, that I received a note of
5001: frem a Mr.Will:ins, on the 2,1 of June : of whom I lied
won 351.i•0f the. Ascot races.'' The defendant further'Stated
that Mr. Wilkins not having any cash about him at the races,
had appointed the, next Monday (being the' 2tl of June) to meet
him (the defendant) at' the Spring.gerden CoffeeAtouse to pay
it. That he,accordingly met that gentleman there, who paid
him the 53/. wjtit a 500/. Bank note and that he (the defend.
ant) gave Wilkins it check for 4351., as the difference ; but
the defendant did not know who Mr. Wilkins' was, nor whet&
he lived, for he had never seen him before the Ascot Races, nor
since the 'meeting at e.,pring.gartiens. On the matter being
further investigated it was ascertained that a 11.1 r. Chifney and
a 341 d
r. Sfirtr lust
both et Tette:ll4l's on the day the
o the defendant there, and in the
:11iraileiis w Inio note,
weree, w
course of the Morning they observed hint to stoop and pick
up sontething. Chifney- asked the defendant whether it wax
Bank notes that he had taken up? when the defendant replied
that it was some small notes he had just dropped. Mr. Strather
et first supposed that he had himself dropped them, and looked
at his pneket-Itook, but found all hits money Safe. Just before
the defendant stooped down both these persons had Keen the
plaintiff pass Icy the very spot with Ills hands in hie pockette....
Mr. Strather denied that the defendant ever: showed hie) title. I
fl 51. or any other note on that occasion; as he had stated to
Mr. Lee when that gentlemen applied to WM.
Upon this evidence, Mr. ScanewrT contended that it wee
quite clear the note in qeeetion had been loSt by the plitintil/
and that as the identical note hail afterwards' been traced to the
defendant, who had been twee to pick up eomething at Tatter-
Rail's, on the day when the loss occurred, these were eireum.
stances NO strong and coefirmatory of the fact that the note then
found was the property of the plaintiff, dna lye submitted theta.
with confidence to the Jury, feeling assured., that unless thatie.'
fendant made out a very strong case, to rebut the presumption,
they would give the plaintiff* their verilict,'erid thereby cause to
he restored . to hint the property -which had'heen very suepi.
eiously, at least, withheld front him.
Mr. Ituononete, on the part of the defenciant, contended
that the evidence was not Suffieient to warrant the ~one in Sup.:
posing the note which the pleintiff claimed 14 have been foUnd
by the defeinlint..`rheec had beets great remiseness ott the part
of the plaintiff in not. inaldeg liisloes publicly known, by width
means perions might he
,
protected trent the embarrassing situa.
tutu in which his Client was Pliteita haring received' a' lost
note (supposing it to be see h) in the
,couree litstra4sattioto •
on the turf, where precaution etas not strictly attended to an
among commercial men, Without having taken care of itiformirik
hintseg well ortlig intitvidual of ;wham iteereceiSed lt. The Act •
was as it had been stated by Mr. Lee On bts'emso-e"mkr0,0011,
that the note Which' the'llefentlant piikfiehis banker's was re.
eeived by him front Wilkins; of Obath unfortunately the
deft ndent had . no
?rived of the bette4t of the tonitiony tpr4fl,7" ,He should, km!.
further knowledge, itstal, wait, theeelbee tie.

ever, be able to prove that the check for 4451. was actually '
given by the defendant on the day in question; and moreover
he should show that the plaintiff had on one or two occasions
given a ♦ery different account of the time and manner in whiCh
the loss occurred, Besides, was it not possible, was it notiwo-
bable, that at a place so crowded as Tattersall's, the plaintiff
might, in the confusion, have paid away the note with the.
others? Such a mistake was very likely to occur, without any
imputation being thrown on the respectable gentleman to whom
those other notes were paid. In the absence, tlicrfore, of any
positive proof that the note was found by the defendant, and
considering the great length of time that elapsed before the
plaintiff made any inquiries about it, and especially bearing in
mind the circumstance of the check being given in change by
the defendant to Mr. Wilkins, and the contradictory state-
ments that had been made by the plaintiff himself as to the time
and manner of the loss, the Learned Counsel submitted that the
Jury would not be justified in making the presumption which
Mr. Scarlett had contended for, but would, in the absence of
more positive proof, consider the defendant as having become
the tow ',fide owner of the note under circumstances that could
imply no want of ordinary caution on his part ; it was owing to
the negligence and rerniptiness of the plaiatiffalone in not duly
apprizing the public of the note having been lost, that it had re-
mamed so long in circulation, and therefore the defendant, as
such bottajidc'holder, could net, at such distance of time, end
under such Circumstances, be held liable to refund it to the
plaintiff.
Mr. O'Meara was then called, and stated, that in the latter
end of October, 184, he saw the plaintiff at Newmarket ; and
was in his company at the Queen's Head there. That in the
course of the evening some conversation took place about the
5001. which had been lost by the plaintiff; and the witness ra-
ther •thought the plaintiff said something about his having
heard that Mr. Sigil (the defendant) had found it. He stated,
however, that the loss occurred on the day when he had had
a row with the witness at Tattersall's, and which was in the
latter end of April, 11123, full six weeks before the Id of June.
This wittiest; did not know any, person of the name of
Wilkinti.

A' person of the name of Sayers, who lives at Tattersall's,
was called to prove that the plaintiff had mentioned his loss to
him as being before the'2d of June, but did not,recollect any
such conversation.

One or twn other witnesses being examined, whose evidence
was very unimportant, and which closed the defence,
Mr. SCAIR LETT addressed the Jury in reply, and said that
the Story of Mr. Wilkins was all a fiction, and that Mr. Wil-
kins himself was a creature of the imagination merely. As to
the discrepancy that was attempted to be shown in the plain-
tiff's account of his loss, it amounted to a mere mistake in
point of time; in all other respects, the evid,nce that had been
called by Mr. Brougham had strengthened the plaintiff's case
rather than weakened it; and he should leave it in the hands
of the Jury with the same confidence in which he had formerly
done, feeling quite satisfied that nothing that had been said by
his Learned Friend ns to the want of publicity of the loss, or
the contradictory accounts of the plaintiff, was sufficient to in.
duce them to withhold their verdict from his client.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence, and
observed, that in his opinion that which had been given on the
'part of the defendant had not varied the case in substance in
any degree, and therefore the questions for the Jury to con-
sider were, whether the plaintiff' did actually lose a note of
kOOL, and whether the note which had been traced by him to
the defendant was such note ; 'and if so, whether the defendant
did find it as had been represented, or whether he had become
a banafide holder of it. In the latter case, unless there could
be shown a want of caution on his part in receiving it, their
verdict must be for the defendant ; but if they did not consider
him to be a bone fide holder under such circumstances as
would exonerate him from want of due caution ; or if they
believed that the note he found was the one which the plaintiff
-lost, their verdict must be for the plaintiff.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—
Damages 6001.

BAXTER. ♦Nt) ANOTHER V. TIIF. EARL OF PORTSMOUTH.
This was an action brought by Messrs. Baxter and Maclew,
coachmakers, of Long Acre, to recover the sum 0f.4771. Us. 7d.,
being the balance of an account owing to them by the Right
Honourable the Earl of Portsmouth, for the hire of a landau
and harness for four horses, and also a phaeton and harness for
two.

Mr. SCAR LETT stated the case, and said he understood the
defence 'which would be' set up was, the hisnacy of the defen-
dant. He could not dispute, after the fact had been es-
tablished by a Commission, that Lord Portsmouth was tie-
rdaenugtendddelienngd. the whole obleefeorte' thettte
Commissiontimeover wliic
elliit thie,ed
pria
va-
rious occasions acted in a public capacity. Besides, according
to law, a lunatic was not protected by his lunacy from actions
for necessaries which were suitable to his station and degree.
• The' late Master of the Bolls bad, in the case of Neil •v.
:hurley, 9 Vesey, 4711, actually refused to set aside a contract
-hflotir:
Ports-
month month discharged all the. usual offices life, and 'had on
signed by a lunatic although it was for a mum to a large amount.
The Learned' Counsel then proved. by a clerk of the plaintiff',
that Lord Portsmouth had contracted in the year 1818 to hire a
phaeton and harness for five years certain at seventy guineas a
year ; and that his Lordship had, in pursuance that contract,
used the phaeton and harness up to the year -1823. That by
another agreement (but which was not signed), his Lordship
hired the landau and harness for 126/. a year for five years, and
had used it fur the full ;period. Indeed the phaeton warsent
doWn to Basinglitoke, for the use of his Lordship, while
the Commission of lunacy was sitting. The carriages were
of a very superior make, and were fitted up both fin town and
country use. .•
linounMAU said .that lie, on the part of the defendant,
should contend, that nit bYlhe 'writ of inquisition, which was
returned on the 28th February 11123, the Esti of Portsmouth
was found to be of unsound mind from the Ist January 1809 ;
his Lordship was therefore incapable of making the contract
that had been proved by tha.plaielialjLwitheis.
The LORD Quizr .inszzcs:....tle fact of lunacy you ad.
mit, Mr. Scarlett.
- Mr. SCAItI.ET MY' bard.
Mr: BlioUGlAli sit contended that there was a distinction be-
tween the case of infancy and that of lunacy. In the first case
'the law gave the infant a power to reader void his contract if
lie choose, or otherwise he might avail himself of it ; whereas
in thocatie of a lunatic there•was..l4,,,contracting ..mind at all ;
there was no person eapable of making n contract.. ,
111 r, ticattr.E TT observed that' 13 Vesey,
had said that a conttniasion of lunacy would not protect a luna-
tic from an action. , • -
• :I,_
The Lone CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion
.that a person
might recover of a Itinafie'rensonable minis, anti that not upon
the ground of a contract, but tvod the ground of the lunatic
being the actual user of the commodity, which was a IVY die,
' tinct case from a contract. •

Mr. BRIM° !lASI thought tht latter cue wns no other than
an implied contract; and he, conceived that the incapacity cl
the lunatic was AS applicable to anlmplied AS to an actual
contract.

The Lonb Cum' JUSTICE said, it had been laid down in
the books as a peation, whether a person could set up against
his own act his incompetency to make it. His Lordship wished
not to be understood to say that unexecuted contracts could
bind, a peraim ,who was not capable of making a contract ; but
if a person who lived at large in the world chose to hire car-
riages, and such oilier things as were suitable to his station in
life, his Lordship was clearly of opinion he was bound to pay
for them, and that he was not at liberty to say that he was a
!emetic and incapable of contracting.
BROUGMAM said this action was defended by the C,)m-
mittee of Lord Portionouth, who wished to have his Lord-
ship's opinion on the question ; but undoubtedly after what
his Lordship had said, he ('dr. Brougham) should not go to
the Jury, especially as he understood his Lordship to say that
the'question, whether the things were necessary or not, did not
arise.

The LOHD CHIEF JUXTIcu did not mean to say that if
the charges were much as were quite unreasonable, and for things
unsuitable to the station of life of the lunatic, that the Jury
might not then say an unfair advantage had been taken of the
imbecility of mind of the party ; but in this case there was no
proof that any such advantage had been taken.
Mr. .I,inouattaat could not say that there appeared to be
any, extravagant charges; though 70 guineas a year was a
large Slim certainly to pay for the use of a landau.
The' Lout) CHIEF J usT tcr..—lt might not be en un.
reasonable thing for Lord -Portsmouth to have a very hand-
smite carriage, and if he does he must pay a very handsome
price for it.
Mr. BROUGHAM hoped his Lordship would given him leave
to move to set aside the verdict, and enter a non-suit upon the
point lie h4tl Mentioned. •
The linttn entEr JusTicEr-011 1 certainly.
A. verdict was then found fur the plaintilfter 5431.
JONES V. THE EARL 'OP EGMONT. •
This was an action to recover the sum of 6001. en A-Bill of
Exchange, which the plaintilfhati accepted for the accommoda.
tion 'of the Noble defendant when Lord Pereira!, and which
the jaaintiff hail been obliged to pay.
111 r. BROUGHAM stated that the case arose out of some
paper transactions in which Lord Egmont had been engaged,
for the' purpoic of raising large sums of niony, and that he
thought it was tt ease litter to be settled out of ()atm than bye,
Jury.
Mr. SCAnt.E.T.I., on the part of the defendant, said, that'
Lord Egmont was perfectly ready to pay the money if 'it could
he proved that it, had been paid by the plaintifPfor hie I.orcl.
ship's use ; and lie was quite willing -to accede to tbs prapp4i.
tion of reeetende.
it verdict was then taken for the plaintiff; -subject, to a
;dim% •

• WEST INDIA DOCKS.
STOCK ACCOUNT for the Week ending Saturday,the 14th
of January, 1826.

Delivered.

I Home
Con-
sumption.

E xporta-
tlOrl.

2,070
101

1,427

1,298

.1G

50
3,409'

1,214

Stock on
Hand.

35,530
2,619
832
1,9 g

6,063
14,301
1,003
21,1141
1441
201

1,231
954
13,71=
1,412
77,243
1,604
5,158

3,018

800
4,092
288
486
19,294
888
503
841
180

8.0
1,500
6,033
30

1
15:)
355
10,01
`..1)

6,255
13,441;
51
1,543
3,710
4,036
2111

51f
176
23
7,859
1,755
929
187,

7,010
6,760
12,20
53,957

East
India
coirtte
.‘ sks 12.::61:0
Barrels 9ird
Bags OVS
St. raining°, Brazil; and Ha- Casks 811
H'Annali Coffey . .Barrels 414
. Bags 7.1,273

T E SUN.

SOLE 31 ours DICERS F4LSUM 4UDII.IT

LONDON
TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 17, 1826.