Star.
London, England, 1827-07-13 00:00:00

LANGDON D. WILSON.

Mr. CoMYN opened the pleadings. The declaration,
consisting of several counts, charged the defendant,
who is an attorney, with negligence in not taking the
necessary steps to recover the value of a bill of exchange
for 3001. dated the 10th of May, 182.5, drawn by Wm.
Pattison upon, and accepted by, Thomas Harrison,
endorsed by Hart iron, John Russell, the defendant, and
Sir Paul Bagot. There was also a count against the
defendant as endorser of the bill. The defendant
pleaded the general tssue.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in stating the case, said,
in reference to the number of counts in the declaration,
that it was necessat y, from the circumstances of the
c-tse, to direct many art ows against the defendant, and
he hoped some of them would hit the mark. 'lite
wh t was a manufacturer of black-lead penci's,
was compelled to bring this action against the defend-
ant, Mr. t bade' Carus Wilson, upon a bill l,f 3001.
which fell due on Saturday the 12th of November, 182:).,

%);::en the bill Was dishotiouted, it nits necessary that
the plaintiff should give notice tb Sir Paul Bagot, who
had endorsed to him, and Sir Paul would then have`to
give notice to the defendant. The plaintiff would have
the whole of the 14th of November tb give his notice to
Ragot, who would have the 15th to give notice to the
defendant, and as on that day the defendant called upon
the plaintiff on the subject of the bill, it was impoisible
for him to contend that lie had not notice. The fact
was, that the defendant, knowing that the kill was di;.
honoured, applied to the plaint if on Vie 14 h of No.
vember, and preVailed upon him to give up die bill to
enable the defendant to get paynserit. The plaintiff
had, however, the caution to. get a memdrandont in
these words 15th Noteniber, 1825—t have this
day received the bill of exch.ihge for 3001. chafed hi
Pattistn upon Hartison, bearing my endorsement aft
the endorsement of Sir Paul Bagot, which I hold al
your attorney to recover the value from the respective
parties, or to make such other arrangement for your
benefit as may appear to me in my professional Ca-
pacity reasonable and proper. Charles Carus Wit.
son." The defendant, after' giving this memorandum,
took the bill, and now he says he has not the possession
of it. The Attorney-General was afraid lie must acquit
the defendant of negligence, and that the first counts in
the declaration, charging him there s ith, could not be
sustained ; but he must charge the defendant with
having received the money, for hi could conceive nd
case in which the defendant would, either as an attor-
ney or an endorser, part with the bill without getting
the value of it. As soon as the notice to prOduce the
bill was'proved, the plaintiff was at liberty .to prove a
copy of the bill if the' defendant did not produce the
original. Either the defendant had received the amount,
in which case he was liable on the count for money had
and received ; or if he had not received the amount, he
was liable, as an endorser, and his not producing the
bill would be no protection to him. In e thee ease the
plaintiff was entitled to a verdict.
A notice to produce the bill, and also to produce
various letters, was proved; and a clerk of the defend-
ant's proved his handwriting to the memorandurd,
which was put in and read.
Mr., CsfarneLit. contended, that the enemorandOnS
Was an agreement, and reqodred a stamp.
The ATTORNEY-GINIERAL said it Was no More ad
agreement than a carrier's receipt for golds.
Lord TEISTBRDza would receive it in evidence;
leaving it to the defendant to move if he thought fit.
Mr. Ramsay, clerk to Mr. Forestet, a notary, pro.
duced his bill-book in which the bill was entered. Wit-
ness presented the bill fot payment on Saturday, the
12th of November, 1825, upon Mr. Harrison at No.
16, Fleet Market. A man said it Would be Paid on
Monday. He presented it for Messts. Hoare, the battlers
Mr. CAMPBELL, for the defendant, submitted that the
plaintiff had failed in making out his case. It *.s not
proved that he had received the money for the bill;
and by the memorandum the plaintiff had relinquished
all claim against the defendant as an endorser.
Lord TINTERbSN—The first" count is prima facia
sustained, and th4t is all that is requisite; for if an
attorney takes a bill " to recover the value, or to make
such other arrangement as may appear reasonable," the
parting with the bill without receiving any thing for it
is a violation of diet engagement. It lies, therefore,
upon the defendant to chew why he parted with the bill.
With respect to !aches, the bill was presented for pay-
ment on account of the bankers on Saturday, it would
go back to the plaintiff on the Monday, and the defen.
dant received the bill on the Tuesday. He therefore had
as early notice as he Was entitled to.
Mr. CAMPBELL submitted, that the defendant received
the bill as an attorney, and not as the party paying it.
Lord TEarafthas—Whether Vae plaintiff, by taking
this special memorandum from the defendant, waved
his claim to come upon him as indorser? is a question
for the Jury.
Mr. CAMPBELL then addreised the Jay, and said,he
trusted that the defendant would prove invulnerable to
all the arrows that had been directed agaist him; and
that the Attorney-General would be much surprised
when he became acquainted with the real facts of the
case, which appeared to have been most carefully di's'•
guised from him. Sir Paut Bagot received the bill
from Mr. Russell, and he prevailed upon the delendatit
to endorse the bill, which he did without any considers.
tion, and entirely for the accommodation of Begot, whp
took it to the plaintiff, from whom he received SsLarid
no more. When the bill became due, it was presented
for payment, but no notice of its dishonour was given
to the defendant. On Tuesday the delendant might
have had notice, but there was laches on the Monday.
When, therefore, the defendant called, the plaintiff said
he had no claim upon him as endorser, and gat, him
up the bill upon the memorandum. The defendant did
all that industry could accomplish to perform his un-
dertaking. Instead of bringing an action, the event
of which would have been extremely doubtful, as
all the other parties were probably as much dis-
charged by the laches of the plaintiff as the defen-
dant was, he set about getting the bill renewed.....
Paulson had become a bankrupt, and therefore it was
useless to apply to him ; but on the 15th of November,
the very day he received the bill, he wrote to Russsell
and to Harrison, and procured a renewed bill dated the
15th of November, at three months, for 3001. drawn by
Russell, and accepted by Harrison. Sir Paul Bagot
was then out of the way ; but the defendant wrote to
Lady Bagot, and did procure Sir Paul's endorsement to
the bill, and, more than that, he endorsed the
self. This second bill was then banded over to the
plaintiff, instead of the first bill, which had been de-
livered up to Russell. Soon afterwards, Sir Pail Bigot
went to Spain, and Harrison becoming a bankrupt, the
defendant pressed the plaintiff to prove his debt under
the commission, but he declined, and he afterwards
pressed him to take proceedings against Sir Paul Bagot,
but without effect. In June, 1826, Sir Paul Bagot re-
turned to England, and was made a baukitipt. The
defendant then proposed to the plaintiff to prove for the
bill at the third meeting, but the plaintiff would 'not....
Russell, the drawer, had.gone to gaol, and Harrison and
Bagot were both bankrupts. It was not, therefore, possi-
ble for the defendant to do more than he had done. The
plaintiff, however, changed his Attorney, and detects his
new Attornies to claim the first bill from the defend-
ant, who was not able to return it, because he had de.
livered it up in November, 1825, when he received the
second bill. Under these circumstances Mr. Campbell
submitted that the plaintiff could not .recover upon any
of the counts,—either for negligence, for there had been
noire; or on the bill which had been waived; or for
money had and received.

Mr: George proved that Russell was in the King's
Bench prison. He had been iu the rules for some years
Witness applied at Russell's request to the delendow
tcspccting the bill, which fell due in November, 18V..5.