Court Of Common Pleas Wed...
The Times, 1824-11-11T00:00:00

f sittillgs in Baneo. -ms tnls an action for an assult, tried at the lact Guildford asizes& before Mtr. Baron Gralhan. The plaintiff sapported her csse by the evidence of her two daughters and two women named Sanders and Bell. There was a great deal of contrary swearing on tile othet side, antd the learnedi Judge who tried it left it to the jury ta say to which side they woould give credit, observing, that there nwtst be gross perjury at enc side or the other. The jury, after de- lib eras for sote ime (after a trial of five hours), gave a verdict .~ the plaintiff, dnamages one shilling. M1fr. Sergeant TA.DDY, for the defendant, now moved for a rule tl showf cau-e wly the verdict shoud not bc tet aside, and a new trial grunted, The ground e7n which he rested tbls motion was, t2ant the defiendant was taken quite by surprise by a part of the ev7idence. produced for the plaintiff, which he was not able to an- tttver at the time, but which he w as now able to contradict in the rrnost-satlsfactory manner. Part of his affidavits were nowr read, frorn which it appeared, that the witnesses Saunders and Bell were X2.t prevent at.thectsaaraction, and that Saunders herself admitted ga hlrsWlMerry, that neither she nor the *fitnes Bell had been pee. nt but that she was determained to go and svvear it, in order to ~bring2Mrs. Doctor through, and to get the better of thle defend- sRnt."Mtr. Sergeant Taddyadinitted, thlat the application wasagainets *t!tse general principle wvhich the Court laid dowvn to itself ia such * ctases, but he reste4 upon the peculiar circumzstances of this case; and he s ubmitteel, that they were such as to justify him in call- ing for the rule. It was trme the verdict was for merely a sVominal cum; but it !carried costs in the action; and independently *of any pecuniary consideration, the lefendant was anxtous to re- nmove from his character an imsputation which he contenderi had been sisno>t unj3ustly, and by means of gross perjury, cast upon it. Lentd Chief Juatice BESr said that, howvever stnall thc damages, 'undoubtedly it wottld be a great hardship on a defendant to-have a -verdict obtaSned against hime by means of gross perjury; but the Court could not go iato that ground now. As tC the ground of sur. prise,lt wetuld be a good one for ,disturbing the verdict, Sf it were sa. tisfactorilw made out; but the Court sawg nothing in the circunn. stances before th.m which could have prevented the partIes who now made aYfiavit from appearing at the trial, and stating there M hat theynowv swore. Under these circum5tances, they would not disturb alveverdict. Mre cther Judges conculrred in this opinion._.Rule refutedS. 51i55 Rr.ADE5t v. ar.OOse This wvas an action ior an assault, tried at the last Norwich as. :sizes before the Lord flhief Baron. The declaration contain~ed two counts, comnplaining of the defendant for assaulting and turninig -the plaintifF'out of a pew, wfhich she alleged to be her propertv. Te this the defendant entered five diffierent pleas :-first, the general issue; the second and third. son amoMa)at demnesn7e; the fourth, that 'the plain;iffThad implroperly entered his pew, and that henmerely -i7n0lflitr imspoeuit rnanur1 to turn her out; and in the lact plea it was atated that the pew belonged to the defendant, an d that the plaintiff antered it Withoult any right or authority. Thie 9ury brough?t in a general verdictof gitilty, and gave one shilling damnages. It after. ri.ards appeared that issue had been joined only on the first plea of general issue: but although replications had been put in to the other pleas, no iS'uiiariter. hail been added, so as to bring themr filly to i6sue; and it was now contended thtat the verdict was irregular, as bring genen on all the pleadings. 'TheCo tIItT was of opinion that the defendant mnight hlave perfected thra i.csue before it went down to trial; and it therefore intltmatedl to Scrigeant Wilde (who moved in it) that he had better look into it in before the parties were put to fulrther expense.-The case there. fre stand) over for the present. OltEElt L.oA?.-nEwrTTs v. rHEwfllit5. I r. 8e2ea311 PELL moved for a rule to have the verdict tn this i< se set sside, It wvas a case which, his Lcrd8hip (the Chief Justice) would recollect, related to a:n endeavour to raise a loan for the 'Gsreeks. The Loan CHraw Jusxsrcw..-les, I remember; and I recol. lea, that when the case was tried before mle, I was of onlnion that -thte plaintiff ought to be nonsuitecl on this point-that it is illegal in :the tubjects of this country to make a loan to the subjects of any 'oithen who tsre contending against their Sovereign-..that Sovereign be. -itl, in ansiay with our Govemrnment. My brother Wilde, hoivevrK, -ivio was in the other case (one arising out of-the same circumstances *irg thich) (le jury gave a verdict for. the plaintiff_..thc illegality of :tlie trannsaction on this point not having been set up aS a defence),did not think fit to take up that point. Mr. Sergeant PELL said, that the principle on which the twvo cases ,rested wasa the same; thoughl In the present case the vcrdict wtaS for 'the defendant. The learned sergeant then proceeded to state the .csxcumsranceKs out of vrhIch the action arose. It was, he observed, its n-rction broughlt to recover certain powers of attorney and other .e6etnments wYhich had been placed in the hands of the defendant. *The plaintiff, It appeared, came to this country for the purpose of raeipg terSauls sums of mnoney feor the service of the GZreeks, be claim- ios,fa havirreceived authority from them for that purpose. He ap- -pl4 &d tbrit.tgb a lr. Comtea, to defendant, to assist him in this ob. ?ri. The defendant expressed his read1iness to do o, but required thice some aecltirty shoutd he left with him. *Mlr. Comtes deposited scixtaia Spanish bonds, and the plaintifF, on h,is part, left the in8tru- smant whiebbe sought to recover by the present action, consisting of elocumedis p,urporting to be wararn ts of attorsey from the Greeki -.overnnmem3 authorizing him to raise the mnoney. The loan, how- tser, WaS not raised, and the business ultimately fell to the ,otoud. Sot11 after, 37r. Comntes applied for the return of his spanis1a bonds, and the plaintifit hln applied for his warrants of at- torney anni certain engraving5 of scrlp receipts. Whatevcr might be tlrt intrinsic valueoftha other documents, the Spanish bonds at least were tsaleable securities. The defendant refused to deliver them up. It wvas trite that thley wtere not worth as mnush as theyw vere orags. zsaIly expected to produce, as he feared many persons had found to thteir c*stt The LO0RD CHr.EF JU5sTIet..The ;ury (in the cast of - Comtes v. Hendrdks") seem3ed to be of the same opinion, as lthe gave a verdict fio. no more than 496f for a bond for 6,-0001. Mr. Serweant PEI.r observed, that they had risensinces and were lielty to rse hiLgher, af the premises held out should be kept. The defeardant, as he befiore observed, refused to deliver up the tbocumntz i his possession, until the expensed to which he had been out Alere pawD him. These exp,tast s w6re oftered, but he still relsered until he was paid a comimission oti 5,0501. ariit which it wasg in4ended to rispe but which scrip, 3n lafct, never came into fhe markbt. The questiCon n the first trial (Comtea' cae) was, whbeth3er rinder all the eircumstances, Comies a a r igt to reco- ver. The verdict ofat e jury was in his favour for all be clained, deducting the expenses of defiendant. On the trial of the, present case, lIowver, the defence setup wa, t tha the whole wss a fraud, and that .plnintiff h1ad in fact no authority from the Greek GBo. vernnient. biat had fallen fromn the Chief utsaic on that occal sion ans strongyc seated to the jury, who founded their verdict on the point. Now he contended, that whice defence, if good at all, ought lo hive been yet sup in the other case. Thel LOr D CHCEh JUSTICE obsertea that tr. Sergeant Vi]de did not teern to have had all his tacoke about him at that Indr. aSergcant froDE saied, that begot it friia hie Lordshiip and was happy to avail himneU of the assistance of the Court on the Oc. caslon. llr. Sergeant PULL submitted, that supposing this to be a loan in aidp.f the struggling Greeks, even though founded on insufficient authority, atill there was no principle wh7ich could prevent the plain. tif' from recovcring the documcnts he had deposited, even admitting that they were notintrinsicallyvaluEable. Mr. Justice PAnx (as we understood him) asked, "Suppose mo- ney had becu lent to carry on rebellion in this country against the lawful Sovereign, could that be recovered by law ?" The LoRD CusIEa JUSTICE said, he had left the whole case to the.jury to be decided on its merits, and they found a verdict quite to iS satisfaction. Hc had left it to them to say evhetherthe instru- ments were not fabricated. The instrmnents were in modern Greek, and there was no person present to translate-them, or to prove what t:hey were. He read the whole of the evidence (his Lordship here went over it again.) It appeared (his Lordship continued) that the wvhole plan of tnheloan Fell to the-, ground, because it was believed that the instruments were fraudulent. It was proved, too, that the signature stfthe Exarch was not ntade in l,ondon, but in Greece, and there was a doubt even as to the authenticity of that. Mr. SergeantPLst. subr itted, that whethertheloan was genuineor not, it made no difference in the plaintiff's right to recover, the il- struments hitich were of value. Sniiie of them were on stamps, on the return of which to the Stamp_offlie_an allowanCe would be made to him. There was, he contended, nothing to substantiate the state- ment of fraud which had been so strongly made by the LIordl Chief Justice Besides, the plaintife was liable to Contes for the amount deducted from his claim for Hendlrik's bill, and there could be no doubt of his (Comtes') right to recover. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.I am clearly of opinion that the whole was a fraud. The jury so found It, and I tio not know how to separate anyone part of the case freom the other, or see that any one part of the case is more free than the other from- the imputa. Ton of fraud. Thec other Judges concurred iR thig opinion, and the application 'OCIJRT OF COMMION PLEAS WVDNvRDAy N-v In DOCTOru V. qTlr%fAVQ-