The Sun.
London, England, 1827-07-23 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, JULY 21.
The VICE CHANCELLOR, on being applied to to
make an order in a certain cause, declared that he
would never make any orders, even of course, with-
out having read the papers. He had reasons for
adopting this plan; but at the same time he beggekl
it to be understood, that if papers were handed up to
him at night, he would read them before morning,
and make the necessary orders in the causes.

MILBURN V. CODD.

This was a case in which the plaintiff, a share-
holder in, and solicitor to, the London Carrier Com-
pany, had filed a bill against the defendant Codd,
banker to the Company, and other persons, to com-
pel them to account for money received from the
sale of the stock in trade of the company.
The defendant Codd demurred, and the case now
eame on upon the demurrer.
Mr. LOVAT was heard for the defendant, and in
support of the demurrer. The plaintiff Milburn had
filed a bill against several shareholders in a Joint
Stock Company called the London Carrier Com-
pany, praying, among. other things, for an account;
for an injunction against all the,-,.her members Of
the company from receiving any money due to the
concern ; and, in any event, that he (Mr. Milburn)
might be paid for the professional business which
he had done for the company in preparing the deed of
settlement and other matters. The bill recited this deed
of settlement, but he (Mr.:Lovat) would only trouble
the court with one or two of its provisos. One
clause declared that the partnership should be carried
on for the term of 99 years, or until it was dissolved
under certain powers, afterwards expressed. The
second clause was, that all debts, liabilities, and en-
gagements incurred by the company since the 6th of
May, 1826, together with the expenses of the deed
of settlement, should be defrayed out of the funds of
the association. His Honour would recollect that
Mr. Milburn had prayed, that whatever became of
the matter, he, at all events, might be paid. The
deed contained another very particular clause which
related to the dissolution of the company : it declared
that a dissolution of the company might lawfully take
place by consent and approbation of three members
of the committee of management, for the time being,
together with the votes of three-fourths of the pro-
prietors : that after such dissolution the affairs of the
company should be wound up ; the debts against
them satisfied ; all the stock, property, and effects
converted into money, and their debts collected; and
then, that the remainder of the assets, if any, should
be' divided among the proprietors according to the
value of their respective share or shares. The bill
also stated, that some of the shareholders of the said
company, without the consent of the plaintiff, and in
direct violation of the deed of partnership, took upon
themselves to dissolve the said company, and passed
a resolution, that from the 3d of January, 1827, its
operations should cease. The plaintiff then sub-
mitted, that as the company was not dissolved agree-
ably to the deed of settlement, he was entitled to
call for the payment of his shares. The plaintiff
charged that he had applied to the different parties,
but that they had refused to comply wi th his
demands.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR--But upon what grounds
do you found your demurrer ?
Mr. LOVAT said, that they founded the demurrer
upon the ground of their agreeing entirely with the
plaintiff that the partnership was not dissolved
agreeably to the deed of settlement.
The irICE-CIIANCELLOR—Putting
,in a demurrer
is an odd way of agreeing in the equity of a bill.

Mr. LovAT Said, the point which he had to sub-
mit to his Honour was this :=They concurred en-
tirely with the plaintiff; that the partnership had not
been dissolved as the deed of settlement required,
and that, consequently, the partnership still existed;
but the partnership still existing, the plaintiff had
no equity that would entitle him to an account.
Upon the plaintiff's own showing, viz.—that the
partnership had not been legally dissolved, his equity
fell to the ground, and for that reason the defendants
had demurred.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said the case was too
clear for him to allow it to proceed any farther.
The defendants admitted by their demurrer all the
facts charged in the bill ; and, to put an end to this
dilatory mode of proceeding, l►e should dismiss the
demurrer with full costs.

Mr. LOVAT said, that with respect to full costs,
he was obliged to say, that the demurrer was not
put in for the purposes of delay, but by the advice
of Counsel.

Mr. SuODEN said, that no less than seven months'
delay had been obtained by this demurrable demurrer.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR said, that he had had as
Much business, perhaps, as any Chancery Barrister,
and that he did not think that he had ever filed three
pleas or demurrers in his life.
Mr. LOVAT had never put in a demurrer for the
purpose of frustrating the ends of justice.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave Mr. Lovat full
credit for that. He would now declare unequivocally,
once for all, that whenever the case was so broad
and plain, that it was manifest the demurrer could not
hold, he should feel it his duty to dismiss it with
full costs. By taking this course, he merely indem-
nified one side from the mispleading of the other.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 21.
DOBSON AGAINST KEELING.

This was an action of trover to recover in damages
the amount of a bill of exchange for 2001., the pro-
perty of the plaintiff, a stationer in the Strand, and
converted by the defendant to his own use.

, —...—....
Mr. PLATT opened the pleadings, and the AT-
TORNEY-GENERAL stated the case. The plaintiff
had the acceptance of Messrs. Roe and Co. to a bill
dated the 20th of December last, for 2001., drawn
by himself, at three months' date; and being desi-
rous to get it discounted, he applied on the .th of
.January last to a friend of the name of Beswick, who
told him it might be done by means of a person
named Nash. They went accordingly to Nash, and
he took the bill to the office of the defendant, who is
an attorney in Lime-street, in partnership with a Mr.
Neck. The defendant told Nash he had no objec-
tion to discount the bill, provided he would put his,
name to it. Nash did so, and was then desired to
leave the bill and to call again in half an hour for
the money. Nash went back to the plaintiff
and Beswick, and returned in the half-hour,
when, instead of money or the bill, another
bill for 150/., which had Nash's name on it,
and which had been dishonoured, but whereof no
notice had been given, was offered to him, together
with a bill of costs and some money, which he sup-
posed was to make up the 200/. Nash refused
to accept this, and insisted upon having back the
bill he had left, or the money for it; but as he
could get neither, he immediately went back to the
plaintiff and Beswick, and acquainted them with
what had occurred. They all three instantly went
to the plaintiff's office, and were told that he was
not at home ; they then desired to see Mr. Neck;
his partner : that gentleman sent out for their names,
and when he had learnt them, refused to see them.
Since then, they have not been able to get a sight
of the defendant, who was alike inaccessible to the
plaintiff's attorney, for he was obliged to serve at
the house the notice demanding the bill. The ob-
ject of the defendant, who is an attorney, in getting
Nash to put his name on the bill, is quite manifest.
His conduct, to say the least of it, was irregular;
but he .ought to be well prepared to prove that he
was the bonlifide holder of the 150/. bill before and
at the time of the application to him to discount the

not dis-
,tit also to
that Nash
' to take
wrote
the bill,
defendant
would not see him. It would appear, therefore, to
the Jury, that the conduct of the defendant has not
been so open and fair as to bespeak a very favour-
able interpretation of his case.
John Nash, examined by Mr. GURNEY.—On the
4th of January last I received a bill for 2001. be-
longing to the plaintiff from Mr. Beswick, in the
plaintiff's presence, to get it discounted. I took the
bill to the defendant ; he had discounted bills for me
before. He looked at the bill, and said he knew the
party, and would do it. He desired me to put my
name on it. I said it was not my bill, I was merely
sent by Dobson. I, however, did put my name to
it. He then told me to call in half an hour, and he
would either give me the bill or the money. I
called again, and saw two clerks; one tendered me
some money, and said there was an old bill of mine
lying due, and I must either haVe that or none. I
would not take it. Ido not know how much the
money was that was offered, as I did not stop to
count it. I did not know that the defendant was at
that time the holder of any bill of mine. I went
back to the plaintiff and Beswick directly, and told
them. We all went to the defendant's office, bus
never saw him since. He is an attorney. We tried
to see him: they said he was not at home.
Mr. Turner, a paper-hanger, went with the
plaintiff on the Ist of February to Keeling and
Neck's office, Lime-street. We saw a clerk, who
asked our business. The plaintiff said it was. to de-
mand the bill. The clerk could not tell any thing
about it. 'lk went out of L. Sthr...* or three
times. We could not get to see the plaintiff.
Thomas Middleton Loveland went three or four
times to the defendant's house, who was always
denied. One of the times the defendant was at
home. Witness told his .business .to the clerk, but
he could not get to see the defendant, who was then
at home: so he served a written demand of the bill
upon the clerk. Witness proved that two actions
were brought in the Common Pleas upon the bill
against Roe, the accepter, and the plaintiff, the
drawer, by the brother of the defendant, to whom
the bill had been transferred, and that the taxed
Costs of the two actions, amounting to 67/. 14s. Bd..
had, with the bill, been paid.
Mr. CAMPBELL said, the defendant was a man of
large fortune and unblemished reputation, was re-
lated to a gentleman of the highest respectability
(Sir Astley Cooper), and until this scandalous trans-
action had been imputed to him, until Nash had
ventured to tell the story he had told to-day, no
one had ever dared to insinuate any thing against
his character. The whole of the plaintiff's case
rested upon the testimony. of Nash; if he was dis-
believed, his client was entitled to the verdict, and
would retain his reputation ; for all the other evi-
dence, however correct it might be, did not weigh
one feather in the scale. The fact really was, that
Nash had been paid the whole of the bill, deducting
the discount; he had put the money in his pocket,
and instead of delivering it to the plaintiff, he pur-
loined it, and set it apart for the payment of his
own debts. He should prove, that 197/. 14s.,which
was the amount of the bill deducting discount, was
paid to Nash by John Neck, in the presence of Ro-
bert Neck, of Drysdale, their clerk, and of Mr. Sky-
ring, a carpenter, who happened to be in the office.
These four witnesses would prove the payment.
tthhwhichty
choetuhl
dew
proveeon tthear
wt
haayt witnessesmsaot
John Neck would prove the precise sum 1971. 145.,
was
sllelf
paid nott
"gentlemeno proveN
ash ;
dis-
countingbills are afterwards to have actions of
trover brought against them for the bills, who would
ever discount ?

John Neck, examined by Mr. CLAIRKXON—I am
book-keeper to Keeling and Neck. Nash called
about four o'clock at their office with the bill. The
defendant, Robert Neck, the clerk, Drysdale, and
myself, were present. He was told to call in half
an hour, and he might then have the money. When
he called again, I gave him the amount of the bill—
less the discount-197/. 14s. I paid him in bank-
notes and sovereigns. He reeeired the money, and
went away.

Cross-examined by the ATTORNIM.GENBR AL.— I
have been clerk to Keeling and Neck six months. I
lived before at Walworth, on my own property,
doing nothing. My brother has been partner with
the defendant four or five years. They are attorneys.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--DO they discount
bills to a great extent ? The witness was silent.
The ATTORNEY.GENERAL—Why do you not
answer the question ? Witness—Because it has
nothing to do with the business.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.—Answer the ques-
tion, sir. Witness.—Not to what I call a great ex-
tent. Not to several thousands a day. They do to
several hundreds. Some days, not others. I have
the care of the cash. They discounted only one bill
for Nash before. It was 150/.; that bill was dis-
honoured. Actions were brought upon it against.
the drawer and accepter. I have the bill, it hai not
been paid. We never did business for Nash as an
attorney. We did not renew the bill. Nash had
notice of its non-payment. I did not give the no-
tice. The defendant and my brother have one room
for an office. I keep the cash in the clerk's
office. The strong box is there. When Nash
first came, he was told to come back in half an hour.
I don't know whether the defendant went out in
the mean time. Bills that fell due that day were
paid in the mean time, and I had the money to pay
Nash. I don't keep the numbers of the bank notes,
or enter them in any book. I 'can't tell how much
I paid Nash in notes, or how much in sovereigns.—
Not one word was said to Nash about the 150/. bill,
either on the first or second time of his coming. t
don't live-at the office. I left that day at five. The
next day I learnt from the female servant that some
persons had come in the evening to the office about
a bill, but I did not hear of any clamour. Aly bro-
ther and his wife live in the house. It never 17,ras
suggested to give Nash his 150/. bill. It had been
discounted about twelve months before.

Lord TENTERDEN.--I thought you se.id you had
been their clerk only six months ! Witness.—l had
lived there before as a coal-merchant. I was ad-
dressed there for orders. 1 happened to be there
when Nash brought the bill to be discounted. We
discount bills some times at 5/. per cent.
The ATTORNEY-.GENERAL.—SOMetiMeS 12 ?
Witness.—l don't choose to answer.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Why don't you
choose to answer the question ? Witness.—Becanse
it does not bear upon the case.
Lord TENTERDEN.—Mr. Attorney, if you desire
that he should answer the question, I will make him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Do they not take
12 per cent:? Witness (after a pause.)-11°. , I
have not. That is not the general rate. They do
not take more than 51. per cent. I never knew
them take more than 5/. per cent•
take no commission. For the actual discount I
never knew more than a discount:
per cent. taken. I have they
known
do
moneyne.
discounted desk
but for clients.
for business that had
been
They never took more than five per cent.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—You have answered
the question at last.
Lord TENTEADEN.—Why should he have refused
Tlheefty onnever
to answer at first ? Robert Neck—The defendant
is a man of property, independent of his profession;
I see people on business most ; Nash did not at first
say for whom he wished the bill to be discounted;
he afterwards said for himself; the defendant said
he would discount the bill, and if Nash called in
half an hour he should, have the money; we knew
both Roe and Dobson, and esteemed them respon-
sible; Nash endorsed the bill without objection; he
was told to come in half an hour, because the money
was not then ready for him; it was got for him ;
when he returned, the defendant, myself, and
brother, Drysdale, the clerk, and Mr. Skyring, were
present; I saw him receive a sum in notes,
sovereigns, and silyer, from my brother; I did not

. .
then known, but have since ascertained the amount;
nothing. was said about the 150/. bill; Nash put the
money in-his pocket, and carried it away with him.
Cross-examined by. Mr. Guarav—There were
several bank-notei in the sum paid to Nash. I sup-
pose an account of them was taken by my brother ;
it is his general habit so to do. I presume it is;
have no doubt of it. I came back about an hour
and a half after I went out, and was informed some
gentleman had applied for the bill, and threatened
to go before the Lord Mayor. We received a letter
from Mr. Harmer dated the sth of January. We
sent back our answer on the Bth.
Mr. Harmer's letter and the answer to it were put
in. The letter demandeel the immediate restoration
of the bill which .they had obtained under, the pre-
tence of discounting. The answer was—"l feel
obliged for
,your polite note, but you are misinform-
ed. If you will make an appointment to call, I will
explain the matter.°
We received the letter on the 6th of January.
Skyring was fitting up the office. We keep no
bankers. We discount bills occasionally—not very
seldom. .It is no part of the regular system of our
office. We do it daily,_ We have a book-keeper
principally for that pnrpose. We discount only for
clients. Nash was not é client. He owed us 1501.
upon a bill. We did not talk to him about that
bill. We do not take more than five per cent. for
discount. We make no other deduction, excepting
for costs when business is done. We do not expect
those costs to be taxed. We discount from 1,0001. to
1,2001. a week, about three bills a-day. When it
becomes necessary, we do bring more than one
action upon a bill. We brought actions upon the
150/. bill. I can't say what the costs were. The
defendant's brother sued upon the 2001. bill. It
bore oue_eudoressnesit. He employed Mr. Spiers as
his attorney. My brother has been book-keeper
within two years and a half. He was also a coal-
merchant. H. gets orders on commission for ano-
ther brother, who has a wharf at Lambeth.
Douglas Drysdale, clerk to the defendant and
Neck—Nash came between three and four o'clock.
The defendant desired him to call in half an hour.
Before he went; he endorsed the bill. When he
came the escond time the money was paid to him
by John Neek : it was in cash and notes. He put
it in his pOcket, and went away.
Cross-examined--John Neck keeps the discount
books. They discount occasionally to their intimate
friends : they have many intimate friends. I can-
not say to what amount they discount. I am
not concerned in that business ; I do the com-
mon law. Nash did not say who the bill was for.
1 was not aware the 1501. bill was in the office. I ,
had not then heard of that bill. They had dis-
counted for Nash about twice or thrice before. They
had no claim against him that I was aware of. - I
saw the money pass. The defendant was in the
office at the time. Mr. Harmer's clerk called about
the bill a fortnight afterwards. I told him I knew
nothing about it.• The defendant was out. The
clerk called again, and I said the defendant would
be happy to see Mr. Harmer, but declined seeing
his clerk. We had some business for Skyring. He
had been with us about Live minutes before Nash
came the second time. I ean't say whether the
money was counted. Most likely it was. I sat at
the same desk opposite John Neck. He keeps the
discount books, the journal, ledger, and day-book.
Zacharias Skyring, builder—l was at the office
when Nash came to receive some money. I had se-
veral men at work fitting up the place. I went in
accidentally between four and .five o'clock. Nash
came in and was there a good bit. I paid no par-
ticular attention. John Neck gave Nash a good
number of bank-notes and gold. When Nash was
gone, the defendant told me he had brought a bill of
a friend of mine, Roe, and asked me if he was good.
That made me remember it. Nash received the
money, and went away very pleasantly.
Gross-examined--I have been a surveyor and
Wider these thirty years. I have not been bail for
four or five years. I have been rejected as bail ;it
was for some trifling thing of 501. or 1001. I have
not been twice bail algae ten years. I have been
nail in a great many actions. I wag not rejected
more than once that I recollect. I have had some
thousand bills discounted; they have discounted
many bills for me-100/. or 000/, in one day
perhaps.
The ATTORNIT-GINERAL—What could I get a
bill discounted for 2 Witness—lt depends upon how
von are recommended. They seldom do it directly
n. that way. They take no particular interest. I
never calculated how much I pay.
The ATTORNNY-GJENERAL.—They tell me 1g
per cent. is very cheap ? Witness—l have had
money from them without paying a crown or any

thing.
Re-examined—Did you ever pay them more than
31. per cent. on any one bill ? Answer—l can't say.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that the plaintiff
was entitled t‘• the verdict. As his friend stated
that the defendant was a man of character, it was
proper the jury should be acquainted that his friend
knew nothing individua2ly of the defendant : he
only spoke from his instructions.
Mr. CAMPBELL here said, the ilefendant was a re-
lation of Sir Astley Cooper.
The- ATTORNEY GENERAL—Sir Astley is a very.
clever, and a very great man; but it does not follow
that a bill broker must be a man of character,tvause
he happens to be related to him. The defenda.a. nd
Neck are attornies, and carry on a trade of discount-
ing bills to a very considerable extent. It was fit the
Jury should know, that the most honourable men in
the profession do not discount bills.
Lord TENTURlA74.—Cettainly not.
The ATTORNEY GENERtL.—It may be very pro-
fitable for them to do so, even though they did not
charge discount, as they may have the opportunity
of bringing actions against every person whose name
is on tio bill, and if there is one good name, they'
are sure of their costs; but the objection is, it is
not, professions), and attornies who value their cha-
racter would not (19 it. Keeling and Neck are at-
' tornies and discounters of bills to a considerable
mount: they, discounted a bill for Nash of 150/.
which was dishonoured; and yet their witnesses
assert, that when Nash brought then the 200/. bill,
and told them it was his own, they said Pothing to
him about the 130/. bill. If they had not been i.l-
tornies, they would have mentioned it—they would
naturally ha e said," Here is your 1501. bill. Nash,
indeekmight have begged them not to be hard with
him, and have told them that the bill he brought was
not his own ; but their witnesses all say that this was
not. the case, for that Nash said the bill was his own.
The Attorney-General proceeded" to comment
with great acuteness and severity upon the dis-
crepancies in the evidence, particularly on the
length of time John Neck had been book-
• keefer, and on hie answers to the • questions re-
spettit,' the rate of discounting, when, after much
,g
delay, he stretched his conscience to swear that the
defendant al:d Neck did not take more than five per
cent., which the Attorney-General observed was
more than Skyring would sw ear. These discounters
who kept cash in thei: office, and di
rate of from 1,2001. to ;,5001. per week, did not
keep an account of their notes. When people agree s
concur in ree
would alway the
to make up a story, they
main points, but would differ in the rehition of some
circumstances that must be known to all of them.
He would put it to the jury, whether the whole
defence were not bottomed in fraud and supported
by perjury. The plaintiff was a person of ;Arnim-
peached character, and the jury would judge of
Nash's evidence. -
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 2001.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.--Juts 21.

COOKE V. DEACON.

This was an action t'or a tailor's bill. The defend-
ant pleaded that at the time the goods were furnished
that he was an infant, to which the plaintiff replied
that the goods were necessaries.
The LORD CRIB?' JUSTICE told the Jury, that
unless they thought the young man had not been
properly supplied with clothes by his father, they
pule give a verdict for the plaintiff.
The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant.