The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-31 00:00:00

CIVIL SIDE.

(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and a Common Jury.

TEMPLE V. HORLOCK.

This was an action to recover from the defendant the
sum of 5061., the amount of a bond entered into by him
under rather singular circumstances.

The declaration alleged that one George Lionel
Massey being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of
2881. he was taken in execution, and, with view to his
release from custody, the defendant, who was his friend,
arranged that other sums to which Massey was indebted
to the plaintiff should be added to the above amount, and
that a cognovit should be given for the whole sum,
which was 5061., and the defendant undertook that
if the money was not paid on the 2d of December,
1840, that he would on the Bth surrender Massey
at the plaintiff's chambers, at two o'clock in the
afternoon, to be there token in execution ; and failing to
do so, he undertook to pay the amount of the debt, and
signed a deed to that effect. The plaintiff alleged that
the condition of the bond had been broken by Massey
not having surrendered, and the action was therefore
brought to recover the amount of the bond from the de-
fendant. The defendant put several pleas rpon the re-
cord, but the principal one was that, on the Bth of De-
cember, Massey hxd surrendered himself to be taken in
execution,and the plaintiff gave him permission to absent
himself, and that he was therefore absent with the leave
and license of the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Pearson were for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Bullock appeared for
the defendant.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL briefly addressed the Jury
and detailed the facts as above stated, and called the fol-
lowing witnesses
Charles Parry, clerk to the plaintiff, who is an
attorney in Furmval's-inn, produced the bond, and
proved the signature to it to be that of the defendant.
" Frederick Wellbank, officer to the Sheriff of London,
proved that, on the 7th December, 1840, a warrant was
put in his hands for the arrest of Mr. Massey. He went
to the chambers of the plaintiff on the Bth, before two
o'clock, and remained until three, but Massey never
made his appearance.
Cross-examined—He saw the plaintiff, but ho did not
tell him that Massey had been to his office that same
morning.

This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr: MERGER then addressed the Jury, and said there
could be no doubt that Mr. Horlock had most incauti-
ously incurred a liability in behalf of his friend, but the
substantial question the Jury would have to decide was
whether, in point of fact, the condition of the bond had
not been fulfilled by the surrender of Mr. Massey, and
whether the plaintiff had not given him leave to depart,
a- d if this was proved it would be a complete answer to
the present action. He said that it was very probable that
the plaintiff, finding that he had got a respectable person
as security for the payment of his debt, did not. trouble
himself about taking the body of his original debtor, but
he suffered him to go at large, knowinF," or believing,
that he should get his money, which was much
more desirablo from the person who had rendered him-
self responsible,. and who he thought was in a better
condition to pay it than the other. The Learned Coun-
sel then produced some letters that had passed between
the parties in which Massey expressed his determination
to surrender on the appointed day, and so relieve his
friend from liability. The Counsel then said he should
ahew that Massey did surrender himself at Mr. Temple's
office, and that upon his representing that he could get
a bill of exchange as a security for the debt, Temple
allowed him to go away and did not, as he ought to have
done, in fairness to. Mr. Horlock, insist upon his remain-
ing until the officer came to capture him—and
that carries out the strict letter of the under-
taking which had been entered into by Mr. Horlock,
This, however, he supposed did not suit the purpose of
the plaintiff, who did not desire to have the body of his
debtor, but the money of the friend who had become his
security.
_..

The Hon. George Lionel Massey was then examined.
He deposed that in 1840, he was indebted to the plain-
tiff, and the undertaking upon which the present action
was brought, was signed by his friend Mr. Horlock as
security for the payment of the amount. He had ap-
plied several times before December in that year, to
know the previous character of Mr. Horlock's
engagement, but the plaintiff refused to inform
him, or to let him have a copy of it. He wrote
to Mr. Temple, and expressed his readiness
to do every act requisite to relieve his friend Horlock
from liability, and that ho was willing to surrender at
any time, and having ascertained, at length, from Mr.
Temple t/titt two o'clock on the Bth December was the
period fixed for that purpose, at twenty-five minutes
past one he went to the plaintiff's office and saw him
there, and he told him that ho was come to surrender
himself in discharge of Horlock's undertaking. The
plaintiff said he was sorry, and wished to know whether
he could not make some arrangement ; and witness told
him he thought he could get a bill for 3001., at nine or
twelve months—and plaintiff said he should be satisfied
with that. Witness said, he should have to go to Mount-
street, Grosvenor-square to get the bill, and Mr. Templer
consented that he, should do so, and he went
away for that purpose about twenty minutes to two
o'clock. He was not successful in getting the bill, and
he wrote to Mr. Temple to that effect, and begged him
to act leniently, and at the same time expressed his
willingness to surrender himself at any time, when he
should be called upOn to do so.
On being cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant CRANNELL,
the witness said that he was in pecuniary difficulties at
the time, and had many pressing demands upon him.
He had known Horlock about twelve months, and there
had been several pecuniary transactions between them,
but not to any considerable amount. He said he was
sure that neither Perry or any other person was present
when he had the conversation with the plaintiff on the
Bth of December. The plaintiff's partner, Mr. Bonner,
was not present, at least he did not see him. He did
not recollect that the plaintiff told him that he
might go to Mount-street, but that if he wished to save
his friend he must be back by two o'clock, but he know
that plaintiff did say an officer would be there to take
him. lie never returned to the plaintiff, neither did he
let him know where he could be found. The witness also
said, that in the following month of February he was
outlawed, and he admitted that although the present
cause was set down for trial at the last summer assizes,
that he took no steps a-offer himself as a witness.
To contradict the testimony of this witness, Mr. Ser-
geant Channell recalled Perry, and he swore that he was
present during part of the conversation, and that he
heard Mr. Temple say that he had been deceived-so often
by Mr. Massey that he would not take his word any
more, and that when be went away he'told him that if