The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-08-29 00:00:00

mation which, in particular circumstances, and in relsll
to particular purposes, the law required should be affroge!,
It meant the giving up of the bill of Mr. James Doti"
which they would Mr. Duncan had not con;w00
cated to the sureties. As he was going to depeau o.laot
that point, he would previously state to thenihroal
he considered to be the law of the case, and t
the jury address himself to the learned judge, n
province it would be to decide it. There no
province
position of law better established than this,
.031' 50
is to ,
a party takes security for another, that arssw"
that when, being a creditor, he requires some g,ll-,sreti
from a debtor, and the guarantee is given, tlie:idor
giving that guarantee is entitled to every piece 01 01
mation which is in the knowledge of the creclit.n 0
that, being known, might influence his deterrainncd) sad
to whether he would be surety or not. Mr. LloY to
the other parties entered into the guarantee as frieaone,
Sir Thos. Brancker, under the impression that it 1135tit9„
cessary that he should give a security to the Plal ellO
They entered into this arrangement binding the„,sf
in the manner the jury had heard, as friends
Thomas Brancker, but Mr. James Brancker did not standlol
in the same position in relation to them as Siroreoch
did. Sir Thomas was the intimate personal friend cor
of these gentlemen, but with his brother they 104 ote
paratively little acquaintance. Most certainly,rar
they were willing to give for Sir Thomas Brancker
sv
rantee to the amount of £5OO each, believing that
doing they were assisting him, and giving to the if itTei
ranee Company something which they required,tpeny
had been told that the real object of this guaran-f gr.
the mere substitution of their security for that °
James Brancker, and that its object was to relies.% of
James Brancker, and not to satisfy the require
the Insurance Company, it was not likely that for
moment they would have given or consented to gi„,,,feoo
such security. Besides, they would observe, if Sir 11 gr.
Brancker or the plaintiffs had told the defendant tba nits,
James Brancker was to be relieved from his seell,D(lo
when they found the brother of Sir Thomas 105 y-oat
posed to be his surety, and that he was actually enaerd the
ing to get out of that position, it would have open iv)
eyes of the defendant and the other three gentlemen Mos
more clearly as to the actual position of Sir iat
Brancker than they then were. Unquestionably, in„i' t ,
of law, he believed, the guarantee was void on acceuxeir
that concealment ; for it was not pretended that the Ile
curastances were made known to the guarantors•sooli
would call the gentlemen before them, and they tee
gll
each of them state that they entered into the 'iostr
under the impression that it was required by the,. oar
ranee Company, and in total ignorance of the e- the
stance that they were doing so merely to stand
place of Mr. James Brancker, to whom, as he had nig)/
explained, they did not stand under the same obliPor
of friendship, and whom they would certainly never; ore,
thought of obliging to the extent of £2,000. If ti,l3,l;esstv
so, as it was, then the rest of the case would be add flue'
to the learned judge; and perhaps it might be 38 '-110.
nient at that time if he turned round to him, 2.0 3'215 to
ing, as he believed he might, that the evidence Owe
given, and that there would be no doubt that those
tlemen were in ignorance of the fact.
His I.orinsurP : That is taken for gr

anted, I undert4lll

Mr. ATHERTON :
Mr. John Buck Lk
stated : The late Sir
sonal friend of mini
whose names appear
intimate wit

certainly.
yd, defendant, was then callure per
Thomas Brancker was a Privaf
and also of the other ger'
th mine in the guarantee. Div,
nes Brancker : I knes4

not very

but had not-the sa:
Thomas. I did n
Thomas's transactil
On that day, Sir T

:ante with him as n" 9
anything whatever 0101,
the 18th of December,pord
'Pd at my office and at to'

exceedingly distressed. He said he hadhad advancei lleret!
shares, and could get a little more time if he coal-41;011;
friend to become surety for him. He asked me if 1 App
become one for £5OO, giving me to understand that 109
1848, would be the expiration of my liability. 1 C_llliore
whether the names of the other three gentlemen "•:a

the guarantee at t'
mention t`

clitf
James ,railim9e,
Alf

If he had,l sl

JLL IJJ MULL, „vo
given the guara.,viitt3

(Cross-examined :) I had confidence-in Siilionla9L
time to the amount of X5OO. I Maned the doe'

without ta_
Mr. Arunurox having replied,
~ : a
His LORDSHIP remarked, as to what had been s',.tltr
regard to the plea of fraud, he did not entirely coupe
what the Attorney-General had said: the entries ,„`` Of
mere matter of suppression, and not fraudulent in
- Mr. James Brancker was 3 Pe 10
m might have been 04 '
it .im4.6l:plageal;eaes
--- Mr. Duncan from Brussels for 'Ald 11,4
tihnatthaatquenessteioint
iolfatitl,site
ptolo.l
` a fraud. _ 11e,,,, to t_;:i

1. notice of it

ay; for

that time ..,
inother form

sofrent person. /
and he did not

should be

effect of bring.

pose of pros
think t'

ere had been a f
question about the' concea

111
01)1111°2:,,b0;
the Corot to

o answer in law, but vw
A vowlim-

hen tali