The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-20 00:00:00

ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF AN ATTORNEY.

ALDIS v. GARDNER. —The plaintiff in this case was
Mr. Charles Melling Aldis ; the defendant, Mr. John
Gardner. Mr. Martin and Mr. Robinson appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Watson for the de-
fendant. The declaration stated that in consideration of
the plaintiff having employed the defendant to lay out the
sum of £3OO for him, the defendant undertook to take
due and reasonable care, skill, and diligence to lay out
the money on good and valuable security, but that he
failed to do so. and the plaintiff thereby lost his money.
The defendant pleaded, first, that he never made such a
contract; secondly, that ne never received the money so
to lay out; and, thirdly, that he had used due and reason-
able care, skill, and diligence in the laying out of the
money.
Mr. Martin stated that his client, Mr. Aldis. had been
an artist, and he believed, a very clever man in his pro-
fession. Now, however, he was studying at St Bee's
College, Cumberland, and was about to enter holy orders.
The defendant was an attorney at Garstang ; he was the
coroner for the northern division of the county, and a
very respectable man in his profession. This action
was brought against him on account of negligence com-
mitted by him in investing on a loan the sum of £3OO,
which was placed in his hands by the plaintiff, for the pur-
pose of laying out, and which sum was totally and en-
tirely lost. The circumstances of the case were these ;
The plaintiff was a native of the neighbourhood of Gar-
stang. He studied to be a painter, and some time pre-
vious to 1840 he went from Lancashire to London, for
the purpose of carrying on his profession there. He was
a man of industry and ability, and in 1840 he had con-
trived to amass the sum of £3OO out of the profits of his
profession, which he was desirous to invest in some se-
curity in this county. Accordingly, some time in the
early part of 1840, a letter had obviously been written
by Mr. Aldis, from London, to Mr. Gardner, and on the
6th February, 1840, Mr. Gardner wrote in reply a letter
which he hoped would be produced, advising that the
money should be paid into Messrs. Barclays' on his ac-
count, by which course he would be receiving 3 per cent.
Interest, and stating that he had no doubt in the
course of a month of obtaining a good security.
The next letter from Mr. Gardner was dated February
15 :—" I am advised that your money, £3OO, has safely
arrived at the Lancaster Bank, and I will take care that

it yields you at least 31 per cent., but I expect a greater
rate of interest." The next letter was dated March 2,
1840, and announced the loan of the money to two gen-
tlemen—Mr. James Baines, of Chipping, and Mr.
Richard Baines, of Manchester, a surgeon, on a bond ;
and it was in consequence of those persons being unable
to give security for the motley, and being pc, eons whom,
if, Mr. Gardner had diligently performed his duty. he must.
have found not fit to become responsible for the sum of
£3OO, that this action had been brought. It was his duty
to have got something mere thantheir own personal reqion-
sibility ; for he (the learned counsel) would satisfy the
jury that at this time their circumstances were such that
they were utterly unfit persons to whom to lend such a
sum as £3OO, and indeed any sum at all; and in conse-
quence of one dying insolvent, and the other executing
an
beend
tGn ar;d nibnerrol assignmentseuuagachhtt.haonf h
He
tewis
carelessness(n mg yearsoro. d
ms
a nf
Martin)
the
afterwards,
t in) obe
n nfi
negligence
lye t
in
h
this
nf
imputedthis
action
is t
trans-
action rr
amedhnasri
action as made him responsible for this money ; and it
was on him that the loss must fall, and not on the plain- I
tiff. The letter of the 2nd of March advised the plaintiff
of this investment, and represented the parties as very
substantial and eligible persons. The security taken was
a simple contract to pay the sum of money advanced. In
1841 and 1842 the interest was paid ; but on the 3rd of
September, 1842, Mr. Gardner informed his client of the
nonpayment of the interest, the illness of the son, and a
change in the father's circumstances, which made a loss
likely. On the 30th of September Mr. Gardner wrote :
" I am anxious to give you the best information I can
collect as to the Baines's, and for this purpose your
brother Thomas has been at Chipping, but cannot ,
gain any information that can be relied on. The young
man is dead ; but I don't see why the father may not pay
the money, or give such security as will ultimately dis-
charge it." The latter portion of this letter was the only
part of the transaction in which he (Mr. Martin) imputed
to the defendant, not dishonest conduct, but something
like disingenuous conduct. From that time to the present
hour, no money whatever had been got from the Baines's.
He (the learned counsel) would satisfy them beyond all
doubt that they were both utterly incompetent to pay such
a sum of money, and that Mr. Gardner, by exercising
very reasonable diligence, would at once have ascertained
that that was so, at the time the money was lent, and if
so, being bound as an attorney to make reasonable inquiry
of the solvency of the person to whom the money was
lent, he must make good the money. It seemed that Mr.
Baines the elder had originally been a labourer, but whilst
he was in the employ of a family called Parker, he made
an acquaintance with the daughter of that gentleman; and
the consequence was that he eloped with and married her.
Her family were angry at her having married so such be-
neath her in life ; but she continued to live with him ; and
her father left her a farm, on which she and her husband
lived, strictly confining it to her sole and separate use for
life, and after her death it was to go to her brother, a
gentleman of fortune living in Preston, and a certain sum
to be paid to her children—he thought about £2500. For
some time Mr. Baines did very well on the farm ; but he
ultimately fell into difficulties, and took to drink. The
fact, however, must have been well known in Chipping,
that instead of being a substantial yeoman, Mr. Baines
had no interest whatever in the farm. It was intended to
bring up the young man as a surgeon, and he went to
Manchester, probably with a view of following his studies ;
but before he got a diploma, he became acquainted with
Miss Carson, a step-daughter of a gentleman named John
Blackburn, of Manchester. They eloped and got married,
and he never got his diploma. He started a druggist's shop
in Manchester, but having had no education to fit him for
such a business, things went wrong : he was obliged to
go away to wretched lodgings ; his wife, with her two
children, went back to her mother; and, in 1842, they
both went up to the place where Mr. James Baines was
living, and there died. Now, this was the young man who
had been represented as having married into a respectable
family of handsome property.. But he (Mr. Martin)
must make one remark on the circumstances which he had
designated as disingenuous. Mr. Baines had contrived
enre,y7ahnod cnonmtmheenlcBethd
anto gaecttisnonmten mreonnnevyarfrfornmm Mhirm.
the d
money,
of June, 1842, Mr. Baines made an assignment of all his
property, (the furniture and stock of the farm) to prevent
the execution from the debt. At that time the defendant
knew perfectly well that he had found out what a__ rogue
Baines was, and yet he represented to the plaintiff_that
r
there was an ultimate prospect of his discharging the debt.
Mr. Martin called for the letter of the sth Feb., 1840,
which was handed in by Mr. Knowles, and read.
It was
from the plaintiff to the
defendant. The writer stated in
effect that he had between £2OO and £3OO to lay out
which was yielding him no interest. He was desirous of
having the money in as safe keeping as possible, and,
observing in conclusion, Perhaps you may have an
3
op-
portunity of putting it out in way of mortgage on
land, or otherwise, as you may think best."
Evidence having been called to support this statement,
"
referred to the acknowledged high character of the de-
Mr. KNOWLES addressed the jury for the defence. He
fendant, who, he said, did think that under all the cir-
cumstances this action might have been spared. He (the
learned counsel) should certainly submit, under the direc-
tion of his Lordship, that Mr. Gardner was not liable in
the action ; for, though be (the defendant) must sustain a
heavy loss in consequence of the death of Mr. Mercer, a
farmer, who was employed by him to make the necessary'
might
r ecothat
this i
inquiriesin the matter, he (Mr. Knowles) trusted that
there was enough in the case, to induce the jury to be-
lieve that Mr. Gardner had not acted with the want of
upon
hepaoosunognbhayhi
ttl e
h:. cat aswu tbn
admittedh ;
and
have
on that
the
in
imposed d
lendingr
onay
r. moneyßaines
iir:he to
the
Mr. Baines on his personal security, he had been imposed
apparent respectability and solvency of Mr. Baines. man,And

Au2,.ust 20,1844.

was at the time certainly involved, yet he could not
help calling the attention of the jury to this, that all the
evidence of Mr. Baines's insolvency came to this, that
at the time of his assignment several creditors had
claims on him to an extent between £2OO and £300•
Here was a man living on his own farm—for no doubt
that was the reputation—and who had married the
daughter of a person of large fortune, and therefore •
man who might well be trusted to the extent of £3OO,
for which he gave his bond. An attorney, as had been
stated, was no doubt required to use due care : but, then,
he was liable to be imposed on as well as any other per-
son, and it would be a hard thing to make him liable for
every failure in the laying out of his client's mono'.
Mr. Gardner had been the early and constant friend (.4
Mr. Aldis, whose talents had been fostered under his
countenance and assistance, and whose success had been
owing to the man who he now dragged into court, saying
" Give me back my £3OO "—the £3OO. probably the re-
sult of the very assistance and care which Mr. Gardner
had bestowed on the plaintiff. If Mr. Gardner had used
the same care for the plaintiff as he had exercised for biro'
self, that, he should think, would be looked upon as suffi-
cient; and it had been shown that after this bond had
been made, Mr. Gardner lent £2OO to Mr. Baines on h;:s
own personal security. Mr. Knowles then read the whole
of the correspondence, to show that this was not an ordi-
nary transaction between client and attorney, but that the
defendant undertook it merely as an act of friendship.
The jury, after a moment's consideration, found a Ter'
diet for the plaintiff—Damages, £3OO.