Star.
London, England, 1818-07-27 00:00:00

LAW INTEI.LIGESCE.

mutt or CHANCERY, JULY 45.
rItiCILARD; IN THE MATTER OF THE DOWAGER DU-
CHESS OF NORFOLK, A LUNATIC.
Mr. WavirEfiaLL, on behalf of the Committee of
the personal property of the lunatic, moved that the
Master's Report might be confirmed, relative to the
ranting of a lease of two farms belonging to the
lunatic, to Elizabeth Store. The only question for
his Lordship's consideration was, who was to pay the
costs of preparing the lease?
The Lotto CHANCELLOR-4t is usual in cases of
lunacy that the Committee should pay the costs of
the inquiry, and the Lessee the costs of the lease.
LORD DIGBY IN THE MATTER OF TILE SAME. •
Mr. WETHERALL said this was a motion, that it
might be referred to the Master to inquire whether
it would be for the benefit of the lunatic that certain
leases should be granted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Take motion, and let it
be noticed, that there is another question, that of the
mortgage, which must not be allowed to die. Let
the Master also report whether it would be for the
benefit of the lunatic, that the mortgage should be

paid off.
THF. swEartuctc. TN OF THE PIX JURY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—I shall not be able to
sit at tea o'clock on Monday morning, as I have to
attend the Court of Exchequer, to charge die Pi x Jury'
preparatory to their examining the corn at the Mint.
The mpst of the day was occupied with hearing
Lunatic Petitions of no public interest. The present
Sittings terminate about the 16th of August.

ESSEX ASSIZES, sATeuDAY, JULY 25.
ABUSE OF EXTFNTS IN AID.
PHILPOT V. MORTLOCKS AND OTIIERS.
It will be recollected that this important case was
tried at the last Assizes for this county, before Mr.
Baron Wool), when a verdict was found for the plain-
tiff, with damages to the amount of £l2OO. On tha
occasion, Mr. Serjeant ONstow, wi.h whom was M,.
MARRYATT and Mr. BARNWALL, conducted the de-
fendants' case with great ingenuity and eloquence. In
Easter Term, the defendants moved for a new trial,
on the ground of an alleged misdirection of the
Learned Judge in point of law, and last Term the
rule was made absolute. The case was now brought
down fur a second trial.
Mr. GURNEY said, that the plaintiff, by. this action,
complained of one of the most grievous injuries, for
which a man could come into a Court of Justice to
seek retires. The plaintiff resided at Thaxted, in this
county, was a farmer and maitster, and had a wife
and eight children depending upon him for support.
The defendants, Messrs. Mortlocks, were bankers at
Cambridge and at Bishop's Storford, and to their
character of bankers 'they united that of Receivers-
General of his Majesty's Taxes in the county of Cam-
bridge, for the due discharge of which office they
rave security to the Crown to the amount of £90,000.
he plaintiff had banked with the defendants, and in
the year 1815 he had overdrawn his account, and be-
came their debtor to the amount of about G or f 2700,
and they were desirous of some security for their
debt. The defendants well knew the circumstances
of die times; they knew the depreciation of agricul-
tural property, d they knew that at that time it
was impossible for a man, howevei solvent he might
be in his circumstances, to make his property avaiia-
ble to satisfy present demands. The plaintiff' at that
time had considerabltproperty ; he carried on a very
etteasive business as a farmer and a maltster, and lie
had landed estates upon which there was then a small
mortgage of £3430. In consequence of an applica-
tioa made by the defendants to the plaintiff, he signed
an agreement, whereby he undertook to give them a
bond and mortgage, to secure their debt, upon his
landed and other property. To carry this agreement
into effect, some time would necessarily be occupied.
It was therefore agreed, that in the interim, the plain-
tiff should give a promissory note for the debt, pay-
able on demand. Accordingly, on the 16th of March,
1815, the promissory note was signed. The agree-
main, it should he recollected, was for a bond and
uurtgage and no more. After the execution of the
agreement, the plaintiff's attorney prepared an aba
s ract of the title to the real property, which was sent
to the defendants' attorney, to enable him to com-
plete the bond and mortgage. In this state matters
remained until the 6th of August following, when
the securities being prepared, the parties and their
attornies met together for the purpose of having them
executed. Mr. Mortlock did not himself attend, but
he appeared by hi, attoruay. On that occasion, the
latter produced a warrant of attorney which the
plaintiff was called upon to eaecute as a further secu-
rity for the debt, although that had not been stipu-
lated for in the agreement entered into in March.
However the plaintiff did not heltate to execute all
the three securities, nameiy, the bond, mortgage, and
warrant of attorney. These instruments having been
thus exeauted, the plaintiff very naturally demanded
his promissory note back again. It was not, however,
then forthcoming, but it was promised to be deli-
vered up by Mr. Mortlock's agent, Mr. Howard, in
eight or ten days, but it never was in fact given up.
in the mouth of March, 1817, the plaintiff was bu-
sily occapied in preparing his farm for seeding, con-
fident that he was perfectly secure from any pecu-
niary embarrassment in consequence of the treble se-
curities lie had given, none of which could be put in
force before a certain time, when he would be in a
condition to pay off the mortgage, and get rid of his
liability to the defendants. Btu, whilst he was thus
reposing in security, an uflicer came down of a sud.
d from London, with an extent from the crown, at
the suit of Messrs. Mortlmk, founded upon the very
promissory note which they had positively promised
to deliver up, but which they had dishonourably
withheld for the base purpose to which it was ap-
plied. Nothing could exceed Mr. P.'s astonishment
at this proceeding but his distress. It came upon
bite like a thunderbolt from Heaven. An extent in
aid was certain ruin to the unhappy victim of his vi-
sitation—it polluted all his property—no man could
lialp him or attempt to afford him relief—no man
could purchase his property, for the Crown must be
satisfied—an extent laid its fangs upon it, and held
it with such a grasp, that no relief could be afforded.
'he plaintiff with that spirit which became an
honest man, determined not to be crushed so easily,
and therefore resisted the extent in the Court of Ex-
chequer, and in the result, the Jury found a verdict

against them, theichy negativing the existence of
any debt on which it could be founded; and on tit it
occasion the Lord Chief &Aron said, "This is another
instance to bring extents in aid into disgrace." But,
it wanted no observation from so high- an authority
to shew the infamy of this transaction. This, how-
ever, was not all : another circumstance remained to
be added to shew the cold-blooded malignity of
these defendants. Preparatory to the trial in the
Court of Exchequer, Mr. Philpois attorney waited
upon Messrs. Murdock, to have the plaintiff's bank-
ing-book balanced. One of the clerks set about it
immediately, when Mr. F. Mortlock coming into
the counting-house, asked him what he was doing?
The clerk told him, when he immediately ordered
him to era;e the entries which he had just then
made, and the order was obeyed accordingly. The
book was returned to Mr. Berryman, the attorney,
thus erased ; but the erasures were not so effectital
as to destroy the legibity of the figures. It might
have been expected that after the verdict in the
Court oftxchequer, the defendant, would have im-I
mediately withdrawn the extent. But no, the officer
remained in possession until the warrant of attorney ,
became due, and on that day the extent was withH
drawn, bus the warrant of attorney was pat in
force. Tie plaintiffs fitrniture, and all his pro-
perty, wer entirely told off; himself and his family
were twit :d houseless and pennyless into the streets,
exposed t ) all the horrors of famine and want, and
exposed t ) the inclemency of the season. Happily,
through the hu-nanity and kindness of neighbours,
the children were take" in and prevented from pe-
rishing for want, to which, but for such goodness
as they must have been liable, through the unfeeling
and merciless conduct of the defendants. This was
the plaintiff's case. The facts were all proved.
The Rev. Mr. Jee, Vicar of Thaxted, proved, that
for eight years the plaintiff had been churchwarden
of that parish, and had been entrusted with the pa-
rish money to a considerable amount. He had the
highest opinion of him as an honest, honourable, and
respectable man. He considered him as completely
ruined in consequence of the exent in aid. Before
that, he believed him to be perfectly solvent, and so
good an opinion had witness of him, that he would
have lent him any money he wanted.
Mr. Serjeant Besr then addressed the Jury on be-
half of the defendants, contending, that the single
question for their consideration_was, whether the de-
fendants had issued the extent in question mali-
ciously and without any reasonable or probable cans:?
Whether it was issued maliciously was a matter fur
their determination ; but as to the reasonable and,
probable cause, they must receive the direction of
the Learned Judge on that point. In point of law
the conduct of the defendants was perfectly justi-
, fiable, for :r c .41,1 not be said that the promissory
note in question ha' oirrved in the other securities.,
The utmost ground of compla'nt against the defen-
fonts was, that they had accelerated ,heir claim these
months earlier that they need strictly to have done;
but throughout the whole of their conluct they acted
bone fide, and without either express or implied ma-
lice. It would be•proved in evidence, that the defen-
dants had reason to think that tie plaintiff was not
in solvent circurnstawees at the ti ne the extent issued,
that they had anted under the advice of Counsels--
that there was no 'Promise to deliver up the promis-
sorysuate; and that upon the waole, the defendants
Ad acted without tire slightest imputation of malice,
The Learned Serjeant, after a most eloquent speech,
for which we have no room to detail, proceeded to
call several witnesses in support ofthe defence set up,
amongst whom were Mr. lilick, of the Temple; Mr.
Trower, the defendant's solicitor ; Mr. Bond and Mr.
Stewardson, gentlemen connected with the Excise;
Mr. Coates, a coal merchant ; Mr. Elliott Smith, a
surveyor, Scc.
Mr. GURNEY replied upon the defendant's case
with great eloquence and ability.
Mr. Serjeant Lees, in summing up, left the ques-
tion of malice to the Jury ; and, after a short delibe-
ration, the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, Eleven hundred guineas.
The announcement of the verdict produced an in-
voluntary burst of applause from many of the Audi-
ditors in the Cotirt, which was crowded to excess in
all parts.