The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-04-15 00:00:00

STATF.SMAN

COURT OF COMAON PLIAS. Ansi. 14.

°Mini r. TATMAN.
This was an action to recover from the defendant
7001, heing the espcnse incurred is the nepturiation
and completion of a loan et 14014 i• w►ic► the de-
fendant acted as plaintiff's &notary. The loan was
chareetl to have been originally given on the advice and
instruction of the defendant, kr an annuity, which was
secured upon certain estates in Lincoln Fens; but it
turned out, that although the 114 was good, and al-
though a favourable representation of t►e nature of the
estates was wade by the defendant, yet they were not
sufficient to pay the annuity stipelated. It appeared
that the slefeu himself acted on Information which
lie received from Mr. Wiggins, the purveyor, and that
the plaintiff lately recovered from Wiggins, In an action
at law, 6,0001., on accotuit of the losses Incurred by his
incorrect statement.
On the presen: oecaßinn, the plain faikd to show
that the defendant acted in an► other Panicle? than as
as a mere attorney, not as a general wet, and there-
fore lie was not 14111
The p!..intill was nonsuited.

Court all the time, and he had us doubt Mr. Randal
Jaelams would have the goodness to take his place.
Mr. Joicasox said it was impossible for bins to remain
in Court so long, on account of a pressing engagement
which he just then recollected he bad to attend to else-
where. He then left the Cowl.
After some delay, the Rev. Mr. Benson took the Chair.
There were, besides, two other Magistrates, and Sir T.
Turton, who seemed determined to take no part in dm
proceedings.
Mr. ADOLPIICP, after stating the party for whom he
appeared, began by asking if the informer waste Court?
Mr. TVNTON.-1 appear for Mr. Ward.
Mr. Anoornes rontetitleol that this was not enough.
The informer 'Would be in Court as well as the defend-
ant. One reason for this was, that perhaps he (Mr. A.)
might have means of itopeacloing his credit with the
Court. Another was, the necessity he was under of,
proving his identity, and that would turn ont, by and
by, to be of some eunsequence. Hut, principally, be-
cause at the end of this conviction it was stated, that of
the penalty recovered, one half, namely 261., was to go
to the informer ; but if the defendant was acquitted, no
one could discharge loim of this obligation but the in-
former himself. (In these grounds, therefore, he sub-
mitted, that an Attorney or Counsel could not appear
for the informer, who, by his aLsencr, must be supposed
to abandon his conviction.
Mr. 'Taro' said, this was the first time in his life he
had heard of an objection being taken to a wale/ ap-
pearing in Court by his Attorney or Counsel, or an air-
, gument used that because he did not appear, his appeal
must therefore be supposed to he abandoned. This
law he was sure Mr. Adolphus imported from some fo-
reign country ; it rertainly was novel to the practice of
any Court its which, he (Mr. T.) had any experience.
Better reasons should he stated than merely calling upon
the Court. lie (Mr. 'forum) appeared as his Counsel.
and he was oralified to appear as arch in any Court in
England. 'I be defendant, as a criminal, was obliged to
appear, lint there was no soma on the prosecutor to do
so. Besides the defendant had been serving notices to
appear upon the prosecutor's attorney by 11:1111e.
Mr. Amment's denied that the notices trete served
upon Mr. Ward's attorney. The fact was, they had beets
served upon himself.
The gentlemen of the Bench (with the exception of
Sir T. Turton) consulted together for some tame, and
then the Chairman said—" We don't think, fr the
practice of this Court, there is any weight in the objec-
tion made by the appellant's Counsel; at must therefore
be user-ruled."

Mr. Aliment:, said, whatever he might think, he
would refrain front saying a word in reply to the Court,
now that its judgment had been given, hut proceed to
another part of his case. lie then put in the notice of
appeal, which was admitted un the other side. lle next
proceeded to read the conviction, which he contended
was fatally informal. This instrument set out, that the
defended *being. on the 25th of January, in the 60th
year of the late King, charged with an offence under
the Statute, was convicted on the first count, and acquitted
on all the others. If this was true, then there were two
convictions; for the conviction, in fact, did nut take
place on the 25th of January, but the 9th of February,
as hecould prove in evidence. He did not know but he
was fighting against another conviction; for, for aught
he knew. there might be two Mr. Wards ; and it was to
ascertain the identity of this person that he wished he
he was herr to examine him. A single word, he con-
tended, was sufficient to nullify a conviction, which, in
all respects, was like an indictment. On this ground,
then, he appealed against the conviction, which was in-
formal and irregular. He concluded by saving, he
mold show that there was a fatal mistake la this imam-

meat.
Mr. TCITOW was beard in answer at seine length. He
denied that a conviction, which was a record, could be
examined by any other evidence than itself. This was
a rule well recognised in the law. He also charged the
defendant with want of candour, in not giving notice of
their intention of taking this exception, which now came
upon them entirely by surprise.
The Cover said they would receive the evidence which
Mr. Adolphns had to offer.
Mr. Anot.rars then proceeded to the other parts of his
case.