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 Lo don, 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, nn a bond ;
and it was in consequence of those persons being unable
to give security for the money, and being pel sons 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 more than their own personal respon-
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 assignment of his goods for the benefit of his credi-
tors, in less than two years afterwards, this action had
been brought. He (Mr. Martin) only imputed to Mr.
Gardner such carelessness and negligence in this trans-
action as made him responsible for this money ; and it
was on him that the loss must fall, and not on the plain-
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 vs as
a simple contract to pay the sum of money advanced. In
1841 and 1842 the interest was paid ; but on the 3rd of
September, 1812, 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 :
‘anxious
hteo
Baines's,giyou tehoedbfeosrt information rmpoartpioonse
dourlean
rollltc am
lse tr
Thomas has been at Chipping, but cannot
gain any information that can be relied on. The young
collect
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 deaths 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
win-ith1814127
theytwo
such a business, things went wrong : he was obliged to
place where Mr. James Baines was
both went up to the
eghoiladwreany, tlso,eiwitrehtecch,kedtolodhgeirn
living, and there died. Now, this was the youngo man who
had been represented as having married int a respectable
he had
must make one remark on the circumstances which
Mr. Baines had contrived
gs;his mother; wife,
designated as disingenuous.
Mr. G ,rdner, who commenced
to get some money from •
, and on the 18th
family of handsome property. IBut be (Mr. Martin)
an action to recover from him the
inment of all his
of June, 1842, Mr. Baines made
that time the defendant
the execution from the debt. At
out what a
knew perfectly well that be had
foundto the plaintiff rogue
Baines was, and yet he represented
discharging that
his the debt.
there was an ultimate prospect of h
property, (the furniture and stocknof assignment
farm) to prevent
in by Mr. Knowles, and read. It was
which was handed
plaintiff to the defendant. The writer stated in
from the
that he had between £2OO and £3OO to lay out
effect
Mr. Martin called for the letter of t e oth 18-10,
as safe kee as -'
having the money in _ _ • possible, and,
which was yielding him no interest. He was desirous of
observing in conclusion, Perhaps you may have an
c,acr under ot f
the
the
op-
portunity of putting it out in the way of a mortgage on
land, or otherwise, as you may think best."
Evidence having been called to support this statement,
Mr. KNOWLES addressed the jury for the defence. He
referred
counsel)
then sel
)shouldacknowledged
certainly
ertai n
high
subcharacter,
submit de-
fendant,
who, he said, did think that under all the cir-
cumstances this action might have been spared. He (the
learned
direc-
tion of his Lordship, that Mr. Gardner was not liable in
the action ; for, though he (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
inquiries in 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
reasonable caution ; and that in lending this money to
Mr. Baines on his personal security, he had been imposed
upon by that which might have imposed on any man, the
apparent respectability and solvency of Mr. Baines. And
though it was admitted on the record that Mr. Baines

August 20, 1844.

was at the time certainly involved, yet he could ea
help calling the attention of the jury to this, that all the
evidence of Mr. Baines's insolvency cape 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 £3OOl
for which he gave his bond. An attorney, as had beers
stated, was no doubt required to use due care : but, that
he was liable to be imposed on as well as any
son, and it would be a hard thing to make him liable for
every failure in the laying out of his client's money'•
Mr. Gardner had been the early and constant friend 9I
Mr. Aldis, whose talents bad been fostered' under his
countenance and assistance, and whose success had been
owing to the man who he now dragged into court, saYll4
" Give me back assistance £3O "—the £3OO. probably the re-
sult of the very 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 forint!'
self. that, be should think, would be looked upon as Sri
cient ; and it bad been shown that after this bond us.
been made, Mr. Gardner lent £2OO to Mr. Baines will'
own personal security. Mr. Knowles then read the abcl6
of the correspondence, to show that this was not an orb'
other per-
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 aver'
diet for the plaintiff—Damages, £3OO.