Star.
London, England, 1822-10-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE

COURT OP KING'S BENCH, OCTOBER SO. •
warm,' V. PODSON AND wire.
This was an action by the endorsee of a bill of ex-
change for £69, accepted by the female defendant
previous to her marriage with her present husband.
After the prima facie case of the plaintiff was esta-
blished by the usual proof% Mr. Falkner, the drawer
of the bill, was called on the part of the defendant.—
He admitted that the bill was given to him by Mrs.
Fogson, then Miss Standish, while she ma's in the pri-
son of the Marshalsea, previous to her taking the be-
nefit of the Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors,
under which she was subsequently discharged. It
was given in substitution for another bill, which was,
overdue, :Ind which she had accepted for goods sup-
plied to her by the witness in the course of his trade.
He directed the bill not to her as in prison, but to her
former residence. The first time he went to her, he
was accompanied by his attorney, but he went twice
before the bill was accepted. He never threatened to
oppose her discharge, if she did not accept the bill.
On cross-examination, the witness explained that
he went to Miss Standish in consequence of .a letter
from her. She said he should not be a loser by her
under the circumstances from which the debt arose ;
but she wished to ask her mother before she gave the
bill. He endorsed the bill to the plaintiff, Mr. Simp-
son, in pal t of payment of a debt of £l5O, and never
told him that the direction of • the bill was a false-
hood, and that the acceptor was in prison.
Here the LORD CHIEF Jostles intimated that hi
had a great difficulty in receiving this defence, as the
present plaintiff appeared to be an innocent holder
for value. Had the billfemained in Falkner's hands,
be would have felt no doubt that there would be a
good answer to an action.
Mr. SCARLETT submitted, that a bill of exchange
given to a creditor by a party in prison, and con-
templating a discharge, was ipso facto void even in
innocent hands. If this were not so—if a party, to
avoid the persecution of a particular creditor, could
bind himself by an instrument of this kind, the bene-
ficial intent of the Statute would be defeated ; be-
cause the insolvent would thus charge his future
effects with a burden which would deprive others of
their remedy. Such a bill was like a bill infected
with usury or gaming, and void in its creation.
Mr. MARRYAT was about to reply, when
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE said, that be should not
decide the point now, as a negotiable security was in
question, but should direct the Jury to find for the,
plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court.
It was then agreed, as the validity of the discharge
might come in question, to submit itidence on two
points to the Jury—first, whether a -previous dis-
charge by the detaining creditor named Clagg was
tot intended to deprive Miss Standish of the means_
of obtaining her final discharge ; and whether being
so released from prison, she was not collusively ar-
rested by a person named Lynch, so as to place her
again in custody, that she might take the benefit of
the Statute? •
The Jary found the affirmative of both these ques-
tions, and a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages £63,
subject to the opinion of the Court on a special case.
'WILSON v. TUCKER, ADMINISTRATIux OF TUCKER.
This was an action against the adrninistratrix of an
attorney, to recover damages for the injury sustained
by the negligence of the intestate in not duly ex-
amining a will previous to prepaling an assignment
of a legacy to the plaintiff, as a security for an ad-
vante of £2lO which he proposed to make.
The facts of the case, respecting which there was
no dispute, were these :—The plaintiff (Mr. Wilson)
had lent to a Mr. Robert Feshfield the sum of £lO5,
and was applied to for a further advance of £2lO,
which Mr. Freshfield proposed to secure by assign-
ing his share of a legacy' f 0,000 under the will of
a relation. Mr. Tucker, who was a solicitor of great
respectability in 13artlett's-buildings, was employed
to prepare the assignment, which he did, and the
money was advanced to Freshfield. It proved, how-
ever, that following the bequest in the will was a
clause providing that if any legatee should assign his
legacy so as to give trouble to the trustees, the le-
gacy should be void and sink into the residue ; and,
after a 'suit in equity, and considerable argument, a
decree pronounced the legacy void, by reason of the
assignment; and consequently the security became
of no avail. _

To prove that Mr. Tucker was not merely directed
to. prepare the assignment in form, but.was instructed
to examine the security, Mrs. Rebecca Watley, the
housekeeper to the plaintiff's brother, was called.
She stated that she accompanied the plaintiff on the
12th of May, 1819, to Mr. Tucker's office, and in-
troduced them to each other. Mr. Wilson requested
Blr. Tucker to go to Doctors' Commons and ex-
amine the will of Mr. Freshfield, and warned him not
to mind anything Mr. Robert Freshfield would say,
for be was a great rogue. Afterwards Mr. Tucker
called, and said " something unpleasant had hap-
pened ; he was afraid Mr. Wilson would lose his
'37; nney." She asked how.? He replied, " either from
his t.'wn stupidity, or Webb his clerk's." She said she
hoped ;tot. He rejoined, " If he does. not, I shall."
On the part of the defendant, it was alleged that
this staten:ent was entirely untrue, and that Mr.
Tucker's vigilance was completely lulled asleep by
the statements o ethane laintiff, and that he was merely
employed to p\p the assignment in form, with
all possible dispktch. To prove this statement,
Mr. Webb, whe\had been many years clerk to the
deceased, 'and final 4-, became his partner, was sworn.
He stated, that he was present at the whole of the in-
terview : that Dlrs. Watley was not present at the.
whole of it; and that no such expressions as she had
related ever were used. Mr. Wilson produced the
official extract of the will, and requested the assign-
ment to be prepared as soon as possible, as the par-
ties were waiting in London. He said he understood
that Freshfield had raised L'3oo or £4OO on the le-
gacy; but there was still enough to secure him, as he
had inquired of the trustees, who lived at Norwich.
The witness admitted that a letter produced was
in his hand-writing, though signed with the name
and written under the directions of Mr. Tucker. It
was dated after some doubt had been expressed as to
the validity of the legacy, and professed the belief of
Mr. Tucker that the objection would not prevail.
prepared by Mr.
The draught of the assignment,