The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-07-07 00:00:00

•
1
1.,
.; ..: •
_
LAI P !Nile I, LIG ENCE. which the names of tl
--ens-- written, and the su
COURT OF KlNti'. itENCH. JIM"' 6. all purported to be v
Dr TASTET v. C UtROLL Asti OTHERS, ASSIGNEES Or with the same pen an(
P'ItRY AND I.IIIIAM.'I In support of the c
• The question involved in this action was formerly to speak to the hand-
, Heti in the Court of Cornmsti Pleas, before Lord these many said the
Chief Justice Mansfield, the prevent Plaintiff being considerable resemblat
then the Defendant, and the present Defendants Foreman, although it
being ?lon Plaintitfa. It was now brought into this ristics.
Court upon a writ of error, by Mr. De Tastet, The principal what
upon the ground that the direction given by Lord han, one of the subsc
t
Chief Justice Mansfield was not consistent with who deposed, that he
, •
's evidence, and with the view of revering the ter. Bantry, in the county
diet which eat then given in favour of Carroll and collected a gentleman
others. Mr. Foreman 9 c
i • ,comint
I
? It will be recollected that the present Plaintiff. October, 1809, in ca
is a wine.merohant, of very extensive husittess, and and pulling out of his
, - . that he had dealings to an immense extent with the he read over. It was
house of Messrs. Parry and Latham, who were in- ; young man named Jul
', de;tterl to him in very considerable sums. It will : age. Witness' obtain(
also be recollected that Mr. Parry, having corn. , of wax, by desire of
', ' milted some forgeries, a knowledge of the facts merit was regularly
came to Mr. De Tastet's ears, who, alarmed at the i signed his 'tame as a
•
I' t ' . consequences which would result to him from any after which the atrangi
1 failure in the house of Parry and Latham, inure- i and delivered the deer.
dimply went to their country house, where he met . him to John Hoddinot
.
`I Parry, and communicated to him the intelligence • fled age.
. which he had received. Parry at first denied the ! Witness, on his ci
troth of thorn, but at length confessed that he had was but one pen and
l!.. committed the forgeries attributed to him. Mr. De Ile wrote with the sar
Taster naturally upbraided him with his conduct, as did John Barry. I
1 and, with a view to securing himself as much as pos. was any fire in the rr
sitile against the losSes which he sew were impend- took place.
ins over him from arse conduct of Mr. Parry, he im- i The testimony of th
mediately demanded a transfer of such property in that of his son ; but
E rums, wines, bonds, Sm. as were forthcoming, as recollection of the rn
• . some security to him against the immense loss which j action, although he 1
he apprehended. To the demand Mr. Parry ac- the main fact of the el
ceded, and did transfer to him certain bonds, rums, To the evidence of
• &c. which were then in his possession, or under his of other witnesses, w
•
f controul. The next day, however, Mr. Parry, fear. had been hoard to SA
3 . • . ful of the cnitsequenres of his own imprudence, ab. Plaintiff, and had give
sconded, and upon this a commission of bankruptcy With respect to the
was sued out against him. The present Defendants second subscribing wit
7 .
were appointed Assignees under that commission, considered of the utm
1 t, and sought by an action of Troyer to recover back iof the action, Mr. PA
to the use of the haokrupts' estate, the property was unable to defray tl
ell which we have just described as being conveyed by from Ireland ; he hat;
Mr. Parry to Mr. De Tastet, and, as we before stated, as to his hand-writing
they succeeded in that action in the Court of Commou The ATTORNEY-GM
Pleas. . of such evidence, who
Lord Fr.r.Esnonorou now held, that as Mr.
self might have been 6
Parry had not, in the transfer which he hail made Mr. PARK contend(
to Mr. De Tastet, acted from any suggestion of his
record in which, whet
!
own mind with the view of prejudicing his other cre- instrument was not wi
, I ditors, but 'older a threat of arrest or other conse- evidence to his hand-e
,
' quences, he could not he considered as having msee Lord ELEENBOROVG
such a conveyance of property as was liable to subse. case, nor did tie think
, •
geese objection. missibte; lie begged,
The Jury, under the charge, combined with sill were on record, recoge
- ) the other circumstances of the case, rind the peculiar Mitt', he cited..
situation in which the Plaintiff .toad with regard to Mr. PARK mention's
!I the bankrupts, found A verdict for the Plaintiff, burn, 'td F..ist, 250,. i
thereby setting aside the former verdict otitaiiied in a subscribing witness a
a i the Court of Common Pleas. • of the Court 9 evidence
i ' # HODDINOT V. roacune. missible.
;
.
This was a ca
This a very singular nature. It was Lord ELLENBOROM
en action brought by the Plaintiff, a young wan made previous in his
about 24 years of age, to receipt- WOOL the :imoulit lie, however, dirt not i
of a deed of gift, from the Defendant. the Woo of .of the Learned Judge
a.l a g-ntleosan of large property, who lately, died at that authority he won
t d retie. The circumstances stated on the part of the aaatnin"ti.
, . Plaintiff. by Mr. PAKs, were these:— The daughter of Joh
, .!.
The Plaintiff is the son of a poor man, who for• as to the hand-writing
f' swirly lived near Bantry, in Ireland, and who was cognised. She had hea
li- I I'
first cousin to Mr. Foreman, a gentleman of very bad never seen him, it,
considerable property, fbr many years resident in Plaintiff.
,
Harley.street, Caveudish-square. Frequent appit. The ATTo aNEY•GEN
catians, it was alleged, had been made by Hod.. and Jury on the part
', ' • dinot, .seta. as well as by other relations, to Mr. served that, during the
', Foreman, for pecuniary assistance, and he had often had never heard of a c
I .
eontribut;d sums of money to their relief, arid bad, bility about it than. tha
/
on the death of the Plaintiff's father, sent 501. to his The Learned Gentle°
/S ) i widow, and declared that he would make some pro- meat on the evidence
vision for her son. The Plaintiff was subsequently ; the part of the Plai
t
\ sent over from Ireland to this country, and was' verted to the deed its,
e bound apprentice to a saddler, with whom he coo-
:, proofs which (hat ins!
. tinned till he was twenty-one years of age, after limas fabrication. He
which lee became a journeyman. During all this that the signature pu
. ,
: • time the Plaintiff had no knowledge of Mr. Fore- Foreman, bore some
man's generous intentions towards him, bat conti. man's writing, but hel
need industriously to pursue his business. Mr. : that account was not
t 1
Foreman had not, however, forgotten his promise, who were disposed tt
. I
for in October, 1809, as he was on his way to pay necessarily feel it incurs
:-..
a visit to the Lakes of Killarney, he proceeded to ! imitation of hi. hand.wi
. '. pantry, and there executed a deed of gift, before perusal of the deed, hoi
i
. in which it was stated •
N two witnesses, and on a prover stamp, in which he
gave the sum of 50001. to the Plaintiff on his attain. i to the difference of the
I
ing the age of twenty-one. lie desired, however, stated all to have been i
i j,.,
II ' that this transaction might he kept a secret till the' not a doubt on his mit
Plaintiff had attained the age in question, lest it and deliberate attemp I'
•might induce him to slacken Isis industry—and on so satisfied was he that I
executing it he delivered it to one of the subscribing opinion, that although
witnesses, a man named Barry, uncle to the Plain-
call, he would leave his
tiff, to be kept by hint till the proper season arrived
,
further support than t
for delivering it to the Plaintiff. In this state things himself furnished.
remained till the death of Mr. Foreman, in September Lord ELENA/SW[OOG
11 last, three years after the period when the Plaintiff deuce, left it for the .1
came doge. On this occasion one of his distant re- likely that a gentleman
I latiotis came from Ireland to examine the will in bility would have put I
. ,
Doctors' Commons, with the view of ascertaining absolutely nonsensical i
..1 whether he had in the disposition of his property read, and which, he cot
made any provision for those relations. Disappoint- a disgrace to the hum
I ment attended these researches, but at this period cabin. His Lordship i
the Plaintiff, for the first time, heard of the deed of evidence of improbabili
gift which Mr. Foreman had made in his favour in nialtad i and, finally,
I 1809. He lost no time in proceeding to Ireland, Barry, In whose custoi
and received trona his uncle Barry the deed itself, been deposited.. This
with which he returned to this country, and de- wag most essential : am
mantled from the Defendant the seen to which, ender .o(!k how the Plaintiff's 1
the deed, be felt lehmelf entitled. This, however, Mr. PARK here inter.
refused, and hems arose thepresent action.
MRS
Nonsuiled.
. I The deed was now pot in. It was written on a
large sheet of paper, and in a very loom stile, evi.. Lord ELLLNIROROUGI
denten exercised a soon
%. i . ' dently the composition of a very illiterate person;
I
. , the words, in many blatant:es, were ili spelt, and In regret he had not done
1 ' ;•• some places wholly mintelligible. It was signed The Plaintiff was the
t ' r with the name of " Leeks Foreman," and was dated , ______..
i A ›, 9th October, 1809. The names of the stbscri:l A boy was run over
I 0
, , oitnesses were J. Mongghee and John Barry the corner of Arlin n gto
* immediately above these names were the figures by which he was muc
$ 1 50001. What was peculiarly simpler hi the Instr.. after the Ealingand Br
A ' ' ment was, that the name of " Luke Foreman" was near the same place, a
written with an ink eight degrees paler than that In sustained a serious inju
1,
4
...
j=imr.agiagalleisigmaiw._
' •.' • (...
, a..,
__