Star.
London, England, 1822-11-06 00:00:00

pognapiwnmerpogi.."•t'./r••-=•"*---

row" 140184,
•
. COURT, OF: glltii*lt *Oribigint• &
oeituavou OW. IRISTAIIIatiI4 •
After the bearing of the tortimillitfr came (which
appeared in our Paper of yesterdays, the remainder of
the tune _of the Court was occupied itt discussing
whether Mr. Basil Montague had Ailitetra: brie( im-
Meetly in a case against which he had received
reusioui•:: It was introduced to the Court by Mr.
Honsanithe petition of Mr. Lloyd in the matter of
Glover,. but Ins Lordship called upon him to skew
statute or Common law to prove that he hid a right
to decide•at all. :It was a very important question,
whether the Lord Chancellor had jorildiction to com-
pel tho,Blir, to do right, or to restrain them from
doing wrong?. He was rather of opinion that it be-
longed to the twelve Judges. If the parties con-
sented, he might give his opinion as having had ex-
' Those matters. •-rysi • • •

'perience in
• The ATTORNEF•GENERAL, on the part of Mr. Mon-
ire, wished to wave every objection as to his Lord-
ship's jurisdiction.
• The LORD CHANCELLOR.-+-If he should •be asked
his opinion as John, Lord Elden, he would give it.
This was a case of bankruptcy. He did not say the
question might not come before him in another form.
Every day he interfered in• the case of Solicitors, and
there might be cases to call for interference in the
case of Counsel. He would hear the case as an indi-
vidual, but he would not regard it as a petition in
bankruptcy.
Mr. HORNE then proceeded to state the circum-
stances set forth in the petition. In the bankruptcy
of Mr. Glover, Mr. Lloyd was a creditor to a consi-
derable amount. Mr. Lloyd took the opinion of Mr.
Montague in the matter, and gave him a retainer.—
Mr. Montague attended twelve meetings of the Com- i
missioners in the character of Counsel for Mr. Lloyd.
On the 22d of February last there was a meeting of
the Commissioners upon the subject of the bankrupt's
final examination. On the 20th preceding a retainer
was given to Mr. Montague for the banks upt, and on
theAlst a brief and fee. Mr. Lloyd having a debt
to prove against the bankrupt's estate, had not in-
tended to give a brief to Mr. Montague for the meet-
ing of Commissioners, but he• complained that Mr.
Montague took a brief for the interest against which
he had been contesting, and hai received a retainer.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, nothing could be
clearer than that there could be no objection to the
second retainer. If a Counsel had a retainer from
one party and no brief, and if he took a retainer and
brief from the other, it was quite right, provided he
gave notice to the party who gave bim the first re-
tainer. It might• be a question whether a notice must
be given of necessity. The general understanding
was that there must be a notice. His Lordship stated
his own experience on the Northern Circuit. It was a
floating idea that no retainer bound beyond twelve
months, but they of the North had net been so sharp.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL disclaimed it for the
Western Circuit.
The ATTORNEY-GENKRAL, Mr. Tnestovr, and
Mr. MONTAGUE spoke on the other side. The last
Gentleman mentioned, as an instance of the evils of
retaining, that the late Lord Lonsdale had retained
the whole Northern Circuit against a Lake-poet, Mr.
Wordsworth.- •
The Loan CHANCELLOR, after having repeated all
the circumstances of the case, gave it as his clear opi-
nion that no blame could be attached to Mr. Mon-
tague. The necessity of the notice depended very
much on the nature of the case. It appeared that
Mr. Lloyd's attorney did in fact know that a brief
was given to Mr. Montague, and did not himself
mean to give him a brief. Mr. Reddish, the attor-
ney, acted upon an idea which many held, but it was
an erroneous one. He had known the greatest evils
occasioned by retainers when great men it that Court
oppressed little men. The understanding and prac-
tice of the Bar were founded in reason, and for the
benefit of the Public, not of the Bar. During forty-
six years that he had been in the profession, this was
the first time the question was publicly discussed be-
fore any Court. It was against all prictice and prin-
ciple that a retainer should preclude Counsel from
taking a brief. The evils of such a doctrine proved
to demonstration that nothing could be worse, what-
, ever prima facie aspect the contrary practice had,
and he admitted that there was something unpleasant
[in it. Here the retainer had been io a matter of
bankruptcy. By the way, the poor bankrupt gave a
larger fee than the rich creditor. It was quite con-
sistent to bold a retainer for the bankrupt; and for
Lloyd. The observations of Mr. Lee, attorney for
the bankrupt, ought not to have prevented Mr. Red-
dish from•communicating with Mr. Montague. There
could be no obligation of confidence in such a trans-
action. Mr. Montague, too, mentioned to the Com-
missioners at once the painful situation in which he
stood, and offered to refer the case then. No blame
whatever could be imputed.
Mr. Morcrar.;ua said he did not ask costs. .
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 5.
THE KING SET? N.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE came Into Court spe-
cially to try this case at half-past nine.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL addressed the Jary.—
The defendant, Mr. Seton, vos charged by the in-
dictment with perjury', committed in answer to a bill
filed in equity by the prosecutor, Mr. Barclay Far-
quharson. The bill, which bore date on the 13th of
'August, 1818, alleged that Mr. Sewn had been ton-
sected with the house of Messrs. Barclay Farquhar;.
:son and Co. merchants in the West Indies, and had
considerable dealings with them previous to the year
1797 ; and it also alleged that Mr. Seton had re-
ceived 19,2001. and 4,0001. for which crei!it had not
been given. Upon these allegations interrogatories
were framed, to which Mr. Seton hid given replies
In his answer ; and on these replies arose the per jury
of which he was now indicted. There were three
diitinet assignments of perjury—first, as to Mr. Se-
edn's dealings with Messrs. Barclay Farquharson and
Co. previous sto the year 1797 ; second, as to the
sum of 12,2001. and thirda as to the sum of 4,0901..
ia,answev to the interrogatory respecting the dealings
"with Messrs. Farquharson and Co. previous t 0.1797
Mr. Seton had ventured to•swear that he hadsno con!
Inexion with the firm before that period, but admitted
that he had a bill and Cash traasactiou with the firm
in 1797, and afierwards other trimaetions, which he;
proceeded to specify relative to estate called the
Dumferlean estate. Now it would be &hewn by the
• • •

•

•••

shewn that _
had sworn falsely ; and it would be for the Jury to
decide whether he did so from any failure of memory,
any inadvertence or. Mistake, or wilfully and with A
eximioal.design. If the transactions had been of a
trivial nature, they might be supposed, in charity, to
-have been forgotten; but when they extended to many
thousands of pounds, could it be conceived by the
most charitable that they had escaped the memory ?
He (the Solicitor-General) understood that it was sot
to be denied to-day that these transactions existed ;
but it was to be insisted that Mr. Seton misconceived
the interrogatory, by supposing that it alluded to ir
partnership, and not to general dealings ; but if so,
why did he, when he denied the existence of such
transactions previous to 1797, proceed to specify a
transaction since that time which had no relation to
partnership? Besides, even if the interrogatory were
understood as applying to partnership, the contract
of the 21st May, 1796, would be entirely within its
meaning. The other two assignments related to the,
sale of an estate of. Mr. Sewn in the isle of Grenada,
and the bills which had been given at several times
for the price ; but these arose out of a most extensive
and complicated account ; and, after the mast anxi-
ous consideration of the case and consultation with
his learned friends, he felt that, whatever might be
his opinion
,painfully and laboriously acquired, he
could not present the case as applicable to these
points in any intelligible form to the Jury by means
of evidence. He,therefore should abandon these, and
desire the Jury, in justice to the defendant, to dismiss
them entirely from their minds. As to the first as-
signment, he should proceed to call his witnesses :
in a case of this description he should not, he ought
not, contend with any zeal or passion ; he was only
anxious that the case should be understood,and having•
endeavoured to lender it intelligible, he should leave
it to be dealt with as they should find it to deserve.
The bill filed by Mr. Barclay Farquharson on the
18th of August, 1818, was then produced from the
office. It was against his late partners as well as
against Mr. Seton, and its principal object was to
have an account of tire sums charged on the Dum-
ferlean estate, and to be allowed to redeem it on
paying them. It prayed also generally.for an account,
and that the defendants might answer its allegations.
Mr. SOLICITOR•GENERAL asked whether Mr. Scar-
lett wished the whole bill to be read, or only such
parts as were applicable to the matter on whichTer-
jury was assigned?
Mr. SCARLETT said, he had no wish to take up the
time of the Court, by unnecessarily reading a docu-
ment of great length which did not apply to the
matter in issue. But he wished the Counsel for the
prosecution would state what connexion the answer
to this interrogatory had with the object of the bill,
and how the matter assigned for perjury became at
all mater;al to the result of the proceedings?
Mr. GURNEY submitted, that the defendant bad
admitted the interrogatory to be material, by not de-
murring to it as impertinent.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.." 0 no, that is not
enough by any means to fix him with it as material.
Here are eight or ten page; of interrogatories; to
which of them must I refer ?"
' Mr. SCARLETT.—There are about 270 interroga-
tories, my Lord. The bill is for the redemption of
the Duniferlean estate, and how this matter applies
to that estate is in no way shewn.
The prayer of the bill was then read, and appeared
in substance as we haie stated already.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that he must admit,
that the object of the bill was to redeem the Dum-
ferlean estate ; and that the interrogatory on the an-
swer to which peijury was assigned was unconnected
with that estate ; but the bill also alluded to certain
mercantile transactions; in reference to which the in-
terrogatory was framed.
Mr. SCARLETT thought it right to state, that the
defendant, amidst all those interrogatories, had not
adverted to this disconnected question, which had no
reference to the chief matter in issue. But when an
amended bill was filed, and his attention particularly
called to the transactions previous to 1797, he had
given the most full, explicit, and satisfactory account
of them in his amended answer.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that if the Lord
Chief Justice thought the statement assigned as per-
jury immaterial, be would net proceed further.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE replied, that it was one
thing to say that the allegation was so disconnected
from the matter in dispute as to be wholly irrelevant,
and another to say that it might fairly be regarded
as not presenting itself as material to the defendant's
-mind. He certainly could not, without reading the
whole of the ioluagnoirs bill, take upon himself to
decide that, in point Of law, the allegation was im-
material; but he shonld;, perhaps, were he sitting in
the Jury-box, think that enough appeared to strew
that Mr. Sewn had very probably answered the in-
terrogatory, amidst so tnaliy,directed-to anotherpoint,
without any design to swear falsely. When, at the
end of such an immense number of
a defendant found a prayer for the redemption of a
particular estate, as a reasonable man he might fairly
think this interrogatory as to past mercantile trans-
actions, so unimportant .as not to direct his particular
attention t 6 its subject.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that, if this was the
impressicin on his Lordship's mind; be should press
-the case no further.
Mr. SCARLETT acknowledged the candour which
the Solicitor-General had manifested in the conduct
i;if the prosecution, and which, indeed, marked all his
professional exertions. For his own client he must
be allowed to say, that if the other two assignments
Of perjury, which alone were material, had not been
abandoned, he was prepared in the clearest manner
to prove the truth of what he had sworn. For this
purpose he had spared no expense; he had sent for
numerous witnesses from Martinique, who were in
Court, and he was ready to meet the charge in the
fullest manner. This statement was due to a mans
of high birth, tic large fortune, and of unspotted
eharacters• who only regretted Tat his answer to

... 11"-.-r.----;-.-
, • ' - ""/"/"Ir•r7 .r...,,,,,,. ..
. . ..
. .
. . .
,

•"••.. -
•

the fats

he was per-
, administering
inconvenience to
help it. lie then
. ground do which
defendant acquittal.
TheJur: of Not Guilty.
DOWN-HA, _ OCTOBER ;a.
SEDUCTIOIT.—ASCMUERS V. RUSSELL.
A Writ *f inquiti of damages in an action for the
sedection of the plaintiff's datighter by the defendant,
Was this day ezecnted before %V. EASTLAKS, Esq. and
a common Jury's The plaintiff, Mrs. Ann Summers;
widow, and the defendant, Mr. Thomas Russell, vic-
tialler, both reside at Stonehouse. The defendant
ilving suffered judgment to go by default, the plain-
tiff was entitled, of course, to the verdict of the Jury,
consequently it only remained for them to assess the
quantum of damages according to the circumstances
of the case, which were as follow:
It appeared in evidence, that in August, 1819, the
plaintiff's daughter, then only sixteen years of age;
went to reside with her brother, Mr. Richard Sum-
mers, who kept the Commercial Inn, on the quay at
Stonehouse, but being confined through illness, his
sister conducted the business on his account. Dining
this time, the defendant was in the daily habit of vi-
siting the house, and being a married man with a
large family, and professing great friendship for the
plaintiff and her connexions, he was received there
with the greatest cordiality. In November follev.ing,
*the defendant succeeded in effecting his wicked de-
signs, and the illicit intercourse was continued until
January last. In the meanwhile the greatest misfor-
tunes had befallen the plaintiff's family : her husband
became insolvent, and was suddenly taken from her
by death; her son Richard had failed in business, and
been consigned to a prison ; and, to complete the
'climax of her misery, her daughter, whoni she had
taken home with her after her son's misfortunes, wis
discovered to be pregnant. In May last theplaintiLl's
daughter was delivered of a female child, and the
defendant being sworn to as the father, he cautioned
to allow a small weekly sum for the child's mainte-
nance until its death, which took place in a few weeks.
The Learned Counsel, Mr. BIRD, addressed the
Jury in mitigation of damages, and called many wit-
nesses for defendant, but nothing was elicited which
could materially affect the evidence of the plaintiff's
daughter, who underwent a strict cross-examination,
and was at last carried out in .hysterics. •
The Learned Sheriff summed_ up, and the Jury
havirtz retired for half an hour, returned a verdict
of—Damages £75. •

. ..
t
i"ll:l•l'llt.r.:,:taiattieenn::ll 11
Pg
477
11
,196b.imat.tuazt'aceitraon4.pth,traahtlailiertfillelfrieri!hnmic.:171611:;;afig.art4peitobbritir4;t:On;:wal411:pit1;7;97eialts..0.11pocuersuete;:111:107321: joi;ll:ii•apti:Thybt;c•nydblidwiajviuvirerystalli:so.Ct.l7ll4ll;rodtby7utwcJ:eh cede
when
Trdnotii.hasecttres:ed.msiilbe'sno,:iraet.htfiveninel:polialhirtl.vemn.e
f ties, in which Mr. Seton was to advance 510,0001. shortly poipted vett° the Jury the ground
g and, at a certain period, to hart a return of his Ca- the defendant was entitled to an acquittal.
i" pital and two-fifths of the profiti. It would thus be The Jury instantly returned arerdict of 3
, ._ ____: 1 A I._ C..... •km Lows Pr, leolitirvrmir_—turACUEßS O. RtritlEL
a shewn that in ,hisonswer upon this point Mr.seton TOWN-HALL (PLYMOUTH DOCK), OCT,