The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-10-31 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—lYearssaiT.

SttI.ECIX, V. Tilt EXECUTRIX OP TUCKER, DEC/ABED.
This was ae action to recover :rem the defendant the
sum of 3151. alleged to have been lost in consequence
of the defendant having neglected pis professional
duty.
The circumstances of the case are as follow :—The
% plaintiff had lent 1031. to a Mr. Fresidielek who resides
in Noes% ich. Some time after Mr. Presidleld came to
Iri n, and requested the lens of a further suns of 21W.
offering as severity for the whole I.ls share of r legacy
of 40001. left Wm it) Lin uncle, hut whirls he was not to
receive till he ettaiesesi the age of 23, the life-Interest he.
ing reserved to annther of the family. Mr. freshliehl
was at the time twenty-two, and the person enjoying the
life-interest died shortly after. The plaintiff went to the,
defendant, who was an attorney, to have an assignment
of the legacy made to Idol, which teas accordingly done.
A suit was instituted in Chancery, in which this security
, was declared invalid, there being r dense in the will ren-
dering any teem) is hich should be asssigned over nal!
and, void, and that it should go to the residuary lega-
tees, and therefore the plaintiff hail no longer any claim
on Freslifield. Ile now brought his action to recover it
from the defendant, who is the. executrix of Mr. 'fucker,.
deceased, alleging that he had lost the money in conse-
quence of Mr. Tucker's not having taken care to rim
mine the will In Doctors' Commons, before he wade the
. assignment.
A housekeeper of the brother of the plaintiff proved, that
she went with the plaintiff to Mr. Tucker's chambers, Is
Beitiett's-bulidinvs, and that she heard Wilson tell him that
he was about tending. Fresimileld money on the security of a
will audio examine it at Doctors' Commons.
Tlie Clerk of Mr. Tucker proved, that the plaintiff
bropght an extract from the will along with bun, and
wished the deed of assignment to he made out imme-
diately, without any reference to Darters' Commons.
The Cuter .1 CSTICE said he was of opinion, that an
attorney was bound by law to examine the will, and not
take any extract, as sufficient proof of ihe validity of the
security unless it could be shown ihat something occur-
red between the attorney and the person who employed
him to render it unnecessary : but it would be :or the
Jury to decide front -the evidence, whether any thing oc-
a-14rd in the present case to preveut dlr. Tucker from
taking proper care to examine the will; if not, they
would End a verdict for the plaintiff only for2lo/., as the
the other lOW, load been previously advanced seed would
have et all events been lost.
Verdict—Damages 210/. •, costs 40s.
Mr. Scants-rt. and Mr. Josses were Counsel for the
plaintiff; and Mr. PuLhast for the defendant.
SIMPSON V. PDOPON AND
This was an action by the endorse of a bill of ex-
change for 63/. accepted by the :emale defendant previ-
ous to her marriage with her present hasband.
After the prima
_facie case of the plaintiff was esta-
blished by the usual proofs, Mr. Falkner, the drawer of
the bill, was called on the part of the defendant. He
admitted that the bill was given to him by Mrs. Pogson.,
then Miss Standish, while she was in ;Le prison of the
Marshalsca, previous to her taking the benefit of the
act for the relief of insolvent debtors, under which she
was subsequently discharged. It was given in substi-
tution for another bill, which was overdue, and which
she had accepted for goods supplied to her by the wit-
ness in the course of his trade. Ile directed the bill not
to her as in prison, but to her former residence. The
first time he went to her, he was accompanied by his at-
torney, but he went twice before the hill was accepted. Ile
never threateged to oppose her discharge, if she did not
give the acceptance.
Os ceass-examination, the witness explained that he
went to Miss• Standish in consequence of a letter from
her. She said he should not he a loser oy her upon the
girceruitassees from which the debt arose; but she wished
'to aslc her mother before she gave the bill. Ile indorsed
the bill to the plaintiff, Mr. Simpson, in part of payment
ofa debt of 1501. and never told him that the direction of
the bill was a falsehood, and that the acceptor was in
prison.
Here the LORD Cats, Justice intimated that lie hot
a great ffillieuity in receiving this defence, as the pre-
sent plaintiff appeared to be an innocent bolder tot
Had the bill remained in Pallmer's hands, be would
have felt no doubt that there would be a good answer to
an action.
Mr. Scancarr submitted that r till of exchange given
to a creditor by P party in prison, and contemplating a
ditelm urge, was ipsofircro void eyed id innocent bands.—
If thi. were not Po—if party, to avoid the persecution of
a partirmilar creditor, could hind himself by an instru-
ment of this kind, the beneficial intent of the statute
would be defeated; because time insolvent would thus
charge his future effects with e. burden which would de-
prive others of their remedy. Such a bill was like
a bill infected wit:i usury or gaming, and void in its
creation.
Mr. M ARITA? was about to reply, when
The Lotto Unite JUSTICE saidohat Ise should notdeeide
the point now, as P deeotiable security was in question,
but should direct time -Jury to find a verdict :or the
plaintiff, subject to the cmi Ilion of the Court.
It was then agreed, as the validity of the discharge
might conic in question, to submit evidence on two points
to the Jury—first, whether P. previous iischarge by the
detaining creditor named Clagg was dot intended to de-
prive Miss Standish of the means of obtaining tier final
discharge; and whether being so released from prison,
she was not collusively arrested by e person named synch,
so as to place her again in custody, that she might take
the benefit of the statute.
The Juicy found the affirmative of both these questions
and r verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 631. subject to
the opinion of the Court on a special case.