The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-09 00:00:00

PONTIFEX V. BIGNOLD,

This was an action against the Secretary of the Norwich Union
Insurance Company, to recover the sum of three thousand pounds,
being the present valu., of a policy of insurance on the life of the
plaintiff. The action was brought on the ground that the plaintiff
was induced, by deception and misrepresentation as to the state of
the Company's affairs in 1830, when the policy was effectO,
For the plaintiff it was proved, by Mr. Alderman FareAlVsther,
Mr. Ridway, and others, that when he effected the insurance one
of the officers through whom it was done, held out to them an ex-
pectation that he should receive a periodical bonus, whi^h was
never realised.

The SOLICITOR.GENERAL, for the defendant, submitted that as
this was an action of fraud brought against the defendant as an
individual, and not against the Company (whe might be supposed
liable for the statements of their agent), there was no case whatever
to make him liable for the statement of which he knew nothing,
made by a person over whom he had no eontroul. The Learned
Solicitor, therefore, contended that the plaintiff should be nonsuited.
Mr. ERLE observed that the prospectuses Issued and signed by
Mr. Bignold, were given to the plaintiff by the London agent, and
contained the deceitful representation.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied that the declaration affirmed
that plaintiff asked the defendant were the statements of the pros.
pectuses true, and that the latter said they were. Now, of that
there was not a tittle of proof, and yet it was sought to make him
pay the damages and ccsts for an act of which he absolutely knew
nothing.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL, at great length, follwend on the same side.
Mr. KELLY; in reply, contended that the defendant having, as
Secretary, issued the prospectuses, and caused them to be circulated
through the agents of the Company appointed by him, he was an.
swerable for the statements contained in them and confirmed by
his representations.
The SOLICITOR.GENERAL further submitted that, as the cause
of action (if any) occurred in 1831, and as the action could have
been brought in that year, the Statute of Limitations was a bar to
this action.

His LORDSHIP said that undoubtedly as the cause of the action
was complete in 1831, it had been decided repeatedly that it was no
answer to the Statute of Limitations; that the misrepresentation
was not discovered until within six years past, and he should there.
fore have to direct the Jury to find for the defendant, unless the
plaintiff wished to bring another action upon an amended decla-
ration, in which case it would be best for him to elect to be non-
suited.—After a short discussion,
Mr. ERLE consented to the nonsuit, intimating that he meant to
contest the judgment of his Lordship at a future time, and ac.
accordingly the plaintiff was called.

SECONDARIES' COURT, Feb. 8.

CRI3I. CON. IN HIGH LIFE.-ASHTON V. BEDFORD.

The plaintiff in this case, William Ashton, Esq., holds the
lucrative office of Collector of the Revenue in India. The de-
fendant, William Devignes Bedford, is Lieutenant and Pay-
master of the 11th Hussars, and the action was brought against
him for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife. The
damages were laid at 10,0001., but judgment was allowed to
go by default.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Phillimore were for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Montague Smith for the defendant. _

'I he SECONDARY having summed up the evidence,
The Jury assessed the damages at 501.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
THE CASE OF THE BARON DE BEHR.

Charles de Behr, described as a labourer, aged 38, was in-
dicted for unlawfully obtaining by false pretences two sums
of 50/., the property of William Osborn Rich, with intent to
defraud him thereof.
Sir. Phillips and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the prosecution,
and Mr. Charnock defended the prisoner.
Mr. PHILLIPS stated the case to the Jury, detailing the
facts, and calling the following witnesses in proof :
William Osborn Rich was the first witness called, and exa-
mined by Mr. BODKIN—Has been employed in the War-
office about thirty-two years. Resides at Sydenham. Was
an acquaintance of Mr. and Mrs. Snow, of Portland-place, aria
an old friend of the family for many years. His daughter also
visited there. In the month of December last unpleasant dif-
ferences had arisen, which had caused the separation of Mr. and
Mrs. Snow. On the 18th of that month the defendant came
to the War-office. Had never seen him before. He intro-
duced himself as the Baron de Behr. He gave the witness a
card with that name upon it. He said he came from Mrs.
Snow, as her friend. He supposed that I had heard what had
happened. Witness told him he had heard nothing, and was
very anxious to hear. He then said there were letters in
Portland-place which Mrs. Snow wished destroyed. He said
he could obtain those letters through the housekeeper, whom
he had seen, if she was bribed. She was to be bribed by either
3001. or 5001. Could not exactly say which sum he mentioned.
Witness said he would have nothing to do with the letters. He
then said it would be very unkind to her, as she wished par-
ticularly to get them, and as she had no money, the witness
must assist her. He asked witness if he could not advance
500/. Witness said, Decidedly net—he had not got it. He then
said 250/. Witness said he had it not. He then said, What can
you advance? Witness said perhaps he could find 501. He (the
prisoner) said he had advanced all he had, viz., 1301. Witness
gave the prisoner five 101. notes, and he then left, saying he
would ge immediately to the house. Witness took no security
or acknowledgment whatever. The ltith December was
Saturday, and the prisoner came to witness on the following
Monday at the War-office. He said the housekeeper
was not satisfied, and must have more. Witness told him
he had no more. Prisoner said the witness must find 50/. to
save his credit; and after some hesitation witness gave him
501. He said when he received it, striking his breast, " You
may trust a nobleman and a man of honour." Witness saw

the'prisoner on the 30th of December, when he came again to
the War-office. He then said that he had again come about
Mrs. Snow, that she was distressed for money, and he (the
witness) was to advance her some for her own private use. Wit-
ness told him he had taken all he had. He then proposed
drawing a bill of exchange for 1601., and the witness declined
to do it, as he did not understand bill transactions. He even-
tually, however, persuaded the witness to accept a bill of 1601.
The prisoner brought a stamp. Witness signed the bill,
and a person called upon him afterwards, and asked
if that was his (witness's) signature; and the witness
understood that the inquiry was made for the purpose
of discounting the bill. The prisoner had told him
that some one would call upon him respecting the bill. The
bill was drawn at three months, payable at Drummond's at the
order of the prisoner, the drawer. The witness was
induced to put his name to the bill on account of the
representation of the prisoner that Mrs. Snow was in
distress, and wished the money for her private use.
The prisoner at this time said, "Make your mind easy,
I shall be receiving money in Jan., and I will give you an under-
taking to repay you the 160/. He undertook to pay the witness
between the 6th and 10th January. The undertaking was
here read, and was signed "De Behr." Witness addressed
a letter to the prisoner, calling on the prisoner to keep his
promise as a man of honour and a nobleman, which he had
represented himself to be, and stating that the money was a
large sum to him (the witness), although it was a trifle to the
prisoner, who could command so many thousands. In a postscript
the latter stated the prisoner had obtained I 6s. from his (witness's )
son. This letter was written in consequence of the prisoner
having promised to call and pay the amount of the bill. A
few days afterwards witness saw the partner of Mr. Snow. In
consequence of a conversation, the witness entertained suspi-
cions of the prisoner.
Cross-examined by Mr. CIiARNOCK—Has been promoted
from time to time in the War-office. Mrs. Snow has been
married about ten years. Became acquainted with Mrs. Snow
since her marriage, and had often corresponded with her.
Did not know when the separation between Mr. and Mrs. Srmw
took place, but Mrs. Snow was at present living with her
. _ _

father. Witness contrived to correspond with Mrs. Snow up
to December last. He ceased to correspond with Mrs.
Snow at her desire. His letters at times were fre-
quent. Sismetimes they were ten a month ; sometimes
not more than one. After the 18th December, witness
went to Long's ,Hotel with the prisoner, he having
invited the witness to dinner. This was after the second 501.
transaction. At that dinner Mrs. Snow was the subject of
conversation. That was the express object of the dinner. Did
not on that occasion express great anxiety about the letters he
had addressed to Mrs. Snow. Said to the prisoner, So far as
I am concetned I don't 'care that (snapping his fingers) far the
letters. Did not say for the world he would not have the
letters fall into the hands of Mr. Snow. No person was
present at the dinner but themselves. The prisoner
came to witness's house at Sydenham, on the 2d January. He
came without invitation. He (lined with witness on that occa-

sion. The members of his family, consisting of two daughters
and a son, were present.- The prisoner had previously intro-
duced himself to them. The prisoner left about three or four.
Mrs. Snow was the subject of conversation on that occasion.
Never desired the prisoner to wait upon Mrs. Snow ; but he
told witness that he was in the habit of seeing Mrs. Snow fre-
quently. Has heard his son say that he has ridden out with
the prisoner.
The RECORDER said he thought the Learned Counsel was
only establishing the case for the prosecution, by proving this
great confidence.
Re-examined by Mr. BODICIN—Had the misfortune to lose
a daughter some time ago, and on that occasion Mrs. Snow
was very attentive to her, and attended her up to her death.
Elizabeth Dickson was then called, and examined by Mr.
Pnimars—Was in January last housekeeper to Air. and
brisrh oe. nrer to
Mr.
marryand Mrs.
Mrs. Snow, who lived at 72, Portland-place. The establish-
continuedhto
i m
ment was broken up. Knows the prisoner, having been in-
troducedvsins
visit
wh her
re toaresa
abroadhsiumi t
suitor,
a athnetdrh ssaeitsvt
several
rirmal laets.itmSeTes September.
em
prisoner
and said he was Secretary for Foreign Aff (L aughter.)
The RECORDER said he might be a secretary for foreign
affairs without being the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
The prisoner asked, when Mr. Snow returned, why Mrs.
Snow did not return. Did not tell the prisoner of the
unhappy.
differences existing between Mr. and Mrs. Snow. In the
course of their conversation, the name of Mr. Rich was men-
tioned. Never instructed the prisoner to get money to bribe
her, to give up the letters of Mr. Rich to Mrs. Snow. Never
asked him for money. for the purpose of giving up any letters
of any kind. Never, in point of fact, received 501. on condition
that she gave up any letter of Mr. Rich's or anybody's else.
Had never had any conversation with him respecting any let..
ters whatever, and therefore was never dissatisfied with any
amount of money tendered to her by the prisoner. Had letters
in her possession of Mrs. Snow's, but the prisoner had no op..
portunity of knowing that fact, nor was her sister aware of it.
Georgiana Snow, who was led into Court by the Reverend
Ordinary of New gate, ' •ate, was then called. She was a beauti-
ful and elegant woman, apparently about 30 years of age.
I:the wife of Mr. Robert Snow. Has been married ten years.
Has two children. They resided in Portland-place. Lett
England in the early part of last - year with Alr. Snow. Had
been at Twickenham in March last. Has not lived with Mr.
Snow for some time. Mr. Snow came to England and left the
witness in Paris. One of her brothers came to Paris and
brought her to England, and she is now living in the house of
her father in Arlington- street. Knows Mr. Rich ,the prosecutor.
He has been on intimate terms with her husband and herself.
Remembers seeing the prisoner brought before the Magis-
trate. She had never seen him before that time in her life.
Never authorised or requested him to make application to Mr.
Rich to obtain any letters. nor for any purpose whatever.
Never sent him to Mr. Rich as her friend.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cir.tanocx—Had been in Paris
about seven years ago with her father. Was there two months.
She was educated abroad. When in Paris she did not go
much into society. She remained in. Paris about a fortnight
after her husband left. She resided at an hotel in the Rue
Rivoli. Will swear she has never seen the prisoner in Paris