Star.
London, England, 1822-11-26 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. NOVEMBER 25.

COMPLAINT AGAINST TWO ATTORNIES.
Mr. Serjeant PELT,, be had to move their
Lordships for a Rule to shew cause. in a matter
arising out of the case of " Short v. Pratt," why two
Gentlemen, attornies of the Court, should not be
called upon to deliver up all the papers belonging to
the plaintiff to his present attorney, and alio to ac-
count for various sums of money received from the
plaintiff and others in the cause, and likewise to an-
swer certain other matters stated in; the affidavits.
The case, the Learned Serjeant continued, was one of
the most extraordinary instances of improper con-
duct he had met with for a long time. The affida-
vits on which it was founded, stated,:thaethe
plain-
tiff had been a fifer-in a military'regiment for several
years, and was very poor. Some time back he re-
ceived information, leading him to believe that he
was entitled to property in land and houses of a con-
siderable value. Immediately on receipt', of this in-
telligence, plaintiff applied to a frieild.tiaraedlialmes
for advice how to proceed to recover this property.
By Holmes he was introduced-to a third-party and
by him to the two Gentlemen against whom the
application was made. These were deic—ribed,to
the plaintiff' as men of great practice and consider-
able skill in their profession. The plaintiff informed
them that he was extremely poor, dnd had not the
means of carrying on any proceedings for the reco-
very of the property. One of the attornies instantly
replied, " I amp the poor man's friend, and I shall not
want more money than will reimburse me the costs
out of pocket in the proceedings." He added, " the
case shall be entered for you in forma pauperis, by
which you will be spared a great-deal of expense."
Subsequently the plaintiff, by applying to many of
his friends, raised several sums of money, amounting
in the whole to. about £lOOO, all of which, he paid
over to the attornies. On receiving those sums, the at-
tornies constantly assured the parties that there was no
doubt of success in the recovery of the prcperty.—
Upon the faith of these assurances, a Gentleman, a
filend of the plaintiff, was induced to advance large
sums for the prosecution of the cause, and, .to secure
him, a deed was drawn up by the attornies by which
he was made the mortgagee of a moiety of the pro-
perty to be recovered. This, the Learned Serjeant
contended, was a positive act of maintenance in a
suit, and the parties were liable to punishment at
common law. Not satisfied with having gone thus
far, these Gentlemen proceeded to administer an oath
to these poor people (the plaintiff and several of his
friends), binding them to secrecy as to the proceed-
ings, to be true to each other in the cause, and not is
employ any other attorney. The Learned Seijeant
was proceeding, when
The Loan r:IIIEFJUSTICE interrupted him and said
—" The offence charged against those parties is one
cognizable and punishable at common law; we can-
not therefore issue a Rule to compel them to answer,
as that might criminate them. You may take your
Rule to shew cause why the papers should not be
delivered:'—llule granted.

CRAMP W. SYMONR, CLERIC.

Mr. Serjeant LESS moved for a Rule to shew cause
why the award made in this case should not be set
aside, and the matter left open for trial. The original
question was to determine whether the fees for the
interment of- bodies in the chancel of a Church be-
longed to the Rector or the Vicar. The case was left
for arbitration to Dr. Lushington, by whom it was
decided that the fees belonged to the Vicar, and that
the plaintiff ought not to have brought action,
—The award then went on to order that each party
should pay his own costs. He (Serjeant Lens) con•
tended that this decision was contrary to law, and
ought therefore to be set aside.
The COURT said there were several cases (which
their Lordships cited) where Barristers had been ap-
pointed to determine both the law and the fact, and
the Courts alwayt considered the parties bound by
their awards, except where they plainly appeared to
be in error. The Court saw nothing in the present case
which called upon them to interfere.—=Rule refused.

SECONDARIES' COURT, NOVEMBER 2$
ASSAULT AND EALSZ IMPRISONNIENT.-.-PRIDDI V.

COOPER.

Mr. Avommus stated, that this was a writ of in-
quiry for the assessment of damages in a case of as-
sault and false imprisonment, the defendant having
allowed judgment to go by default. Compensation
in damages was sought by a young Lady for the in-
jury she had sustained in being dragged to a watch-
house at night by a watchman, under the authority
of the defendant, charged with the commission of a
felony, and detained contrary to law. The Learned
Counsel then detailed the evidence as it was given by
the following witnesses :
Mrs. Louisa Kingdom, sister of the plaintiff, stated,
that on the 7th of 'October last she determined to go
from Henry-street, Kennington, where she lived, to
her mother's house, at Chelsea, to lye-in, and took
measures to remove her bed and baby linen accord-
ingly. The Sheriff's officers had come on that day
to look for ber husband, who was from home, and an
execution was in the house. She took a small band-
box in int hand, but her sister (the plaiutiff) who

aCCOINKSett** toot IttsOftOtet; and both set eT
between nine and ten at night. They had not golie.(2o
yards when -the defendant, who was Mr. KingeBm's
landlord, came up and desired to look at the contelits
of the box. This was most Willingly granted. The
box contained three or four glasses, some women's
ilinen, and a small brass fOotman, and the defendant
immediately said that they were removing the house..
hold furniture, and that the articles should retain.
Witness said that defendant might take them borne
with him, or where he liked, but they should not be
taken* -into her house. After some altercation, Ile
knocked at the door of the house, but the witnets
would not allow it to be opened, upon which 1.,
called the watchman, and said, pointing to the
tiff, 44,1 give yois this woman in charge, tar feloniously
aiding to remove goods, in order to defraud me fl
rent. The watchman immediately dragged tl:e
plaintiff to the watch-house at Vauxhall, and calle
them both swindlers and b--s. The defendant tcld
the watchman, if any resistance was made, to sprint-
his rattle and get help. There wag remaining sia
house, after witness left it that night, a great deal
furniture, much much more than would have paid off
value the rent due to the defendant.
Cross-examined.—Her husband was in debt t.)
tradespeople in the neighbourhood, and owed a sho3
bill to the defendant, who had since the time of tie
violence taken possession of the house. When plaintiff
was leaving the house it was not more than ten o'clock.
Joseph Randall, a constable of Vauxhall, stated,
that Richard James, a watchman, brought the plain-
tiff to the watch-house at a little after ten, on t::e
eight of the 7th of October. She had the box w;!1
the articles described. The defendant said he charged
her with illegally taking away those things from the
house when there was an execution in it (4 rent._
Witness told him he had nothing to do with money
transactions, and that he (the plaintiff) ought to
care mit arrender hinself liable. The plaintiff had
been detained go. or gs minutes, and wa, told bi
the witness (who, .being ten years in the place, kke..."
his duty) that she was at per tect liberty to depart.—
The defendant had distinctly stated that the propwi
was not his.

Mr: PLATT, for the defence, almoit regretted that
the case,had not been defended elsewhere, although
he at once admitted that his client had committed an
illegal am . Tke Learned Counsel then argued, that
the plaintiff had sustained no injury, and sh4.u;Li not
have assisted in what certainly should be considered a
frattdulen.t removal of goods, and called upon the Jury
to tive no more than'one farthing for her suffning,,
. The UNDER SHERIFF left the case to the Jury, Idler
having summed up the evidence.
The damages were then awarded at £9.0.