Court Of Common Pleas, Fr...
The Times, 1824-05-08T00:00:00

(Sittin-s in Banco.) 'I'lhis was an acnon to recover damages from the defendants, who acted as agents for the plaintiff on a particular occasion for negli- gence and carelessness in laying out certain sums whicb. he had in- trusted to them for the purchase of annuities, It appeared that in 1816 two sums, one of 3,600L, and another of l.2001.,were plUced in detendants' hands, and it appeared also, that on the 15th and 16th of the same montb, two sums of the same amoutut were placed to theaccount of the Marquis of Blandford bytthe defendants, they having got from himn an annuity for the amount, not charged upon sanded property, but on the personal security of the noble marquis himself. This the plaintiff' contended was a careless and negligent managerment of his money, it having appeared that the property of the Marquis of Blandford was at that very time charged with debts to the amount of 296,0001. On the trial, the plaintiffnot being able to give satisfactory proof that the noble marquis (now the Duke of Marlborough) was wholly unable to pay, was nonsuited. AMr. Sergeant BOSANHQUET this day moved for a rule to show cause wby the nonsuit shouldl not beset aside, and a new trial granted. The ground on which he moved it was, that there was evidence to go to the jury of negligenceon the part of the iefendatts; it being certain that tthe property of the noble lord to whom the mo- ney was advanced was unequal to the demands upon it, and that the noble lord's person was protected by his rank. The COURT granted the rule to show cause. The Court rose at 12 o'clock, and Lord Chief Justice BEST sat at ATisi Prius for the remainder of the dav. CAHNERON AND WVIFE T. NAItER. Mir. Sergeant VAUGHAN stated this case to the jury. It was an action to recover corpensation for the maintenasce and education of the defendanes child. The learned sergeant observed that the case was one which he regretted to bring forward, as it woAl necessarily lay open some family transactions, which it might haive been the interest of all parties to conceal. It was, however, imperative upon the plaintiffs to bring tile subject before a court of law, as there was no other mode left to them of obtaining what they con- ceived they had sojust a right to. The defendant. Mlr. Baker, was a gentleman tboving in a respectable sphere of life'; Mrs. Cameron, the wife of the plaintiff, was his first cousin. She was then Ihliss Patker. It would appear, that early in life, and before her marriage, a great degree of intimacy subsisted between Dliss Parker and Ar. Baker; that intimacy unfortunately ended in a criminal connexion of which thechild,whose maintenanceformed the subjectofthe present action,was the fruit. In the course f some time l its Parlker was mar- ried to herpresent husband. She contintued to keep tb,e child, and Mr. Cameron sutpported it. At length, however, a demand was made On MIrBaker, of payment for the support ofhischild. This demaoid Mir. Baker resisted, and in the year 1820 an action was brought to recover. The father of the defendant, unwvilling that the case should be brought before the public, emoployed a solidtor to defend, with the intention of bringing it if possible to an amicable termination. By this gentleman, and the attorney of the plaintiff an agreement was entered into that the defendant was to pay 2201. in lieu of the demand and costs of suit. Of this sumn 50i. was to be invested for the benefit of the child, then 10 years old. The remaiuder of the money went to Mr. and Alrs. Camieron. There was then a kind of understanding that the defendant shon ld con- tinue to pay for the support of the child, and in fact he had paid at the rate of 201. a year by quarterly payments up to April, 1823, at which time he refused, and the present action was brought. AU that the plaintiffs wanted was, that they shlould be reimbursed for the board and education of the young 'ladv, upon whom they) spared no expense which their limited meansn would allow. The Jury would, no doubt, teink this a reasonable demand, and hisLord- ship would tell then,,tha inlaw thefa:her was bound topay for his child, lie having adnitted himself liable by his former payments. The Jury would give such reasonable damages as they thought the case required. The learnedsergeant then calld the following evi- dence : AMr. Mlartin proved that hc was attorney in a cause of " Cameron v. Baker," for the defendant nominally, but in reality for the de- fendant's father. Had conversations with the defendant respecting an agreement which had been made in the cause. That agreement was made by the defendant's father. The defendant expressed great dissatisfactien at the natute of this agreement. Mr. WILDE here offered to produce the agreement. Mr. Sergeant PELtE objected to it as not being legal evidence. It was an agreemnent made for the defendant, but against his consent- It could not, therefore, be produced as his. Mir. WILDE contenided that the agreement was legaL Mr Dar- tin acted by the desire of the defendant's father as his (defendant's) attorney; and it did not appear that the defendant had objected tt his having so acted, and was therefore bound by the agreement. Mr. Mlartin here stated (in answer to a question from Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN) that defendant had paid money for the support of the child since the agreement was cntered into. It was after the agree- ment, but he could not say it was in consequence of it. He always grumbled at the agreement, whenever it was mentioned. Lord ChiefJustice ]3EST here asked whether the case could not be settled out of Court. He was not fend of making such a reconi- mendation, but he reaUy thought this was a case in which it might be acted upon with great advantage to both parties. They were near relatives, and on cool reflection, they would perceive the benefit of Tiot pressing such a case as this before the public, Mlr. Sergeant PELL, who was for the defendant, said, that such would be his advice, and in fact, such was his advice to the gentle- man from whom he lad received liis instructions. That gentleman was most willing to act upon it, but thev had a client who was not present, and who, they were certain, would not consent to any such arrangement. However reluctantly, they must therefore proceed. Lord Chief Justice BEST then said, that with respect to the agree- ment which had been entered into, he must admit it as evidence. The defendant's father had appointed the attorney by whom it was drawn, but the defendant had acknowledged him and spoken to him on the subject of it. It was true he always grumbled when it was mentioned, but that did not render it invalid. The agreement. was then put in and read. It was signed by the attorneys fbr plaintiff and defendant, and also by both plaintiffs, but not by delendant. We have already stated the substance of its contents. AlisslMary Mortram proved the support of the child by Mrs. Cameron. Alr. and lrs. Cameron always supported her, though they are not in a condition to do so without great inconvenience to themselves. Cross-examined by Jir. Sergeant PE.LL.-The child is fourteen years old: has been always with Mrs. Cameron. Mr. Cameron is in the East Indies, in the sea-service. The mother is in the straw- bonnet business. The girl is not bred to the business: she was intendedifor a governess, and kept at school. Mrs. Oliver keeps a school at Broinley, where the daughter of Mrs. Cameron was with her as a boarder for nearly two years. She was supplied with suitable clothes and other necessaries by her mother. The child was intended to be a governess. The Lord Chief Justice BEST here asked whether it was not ne- cessary to prove, that the father was consenting to thesemexpenses on the part of the child. It appeared here, that the child was solely under the control of the mother. Alr. W1rILDE read a case in which LordEllenboroughheld,thatif a father visited lis child at nurse, lie would be liable for its support though no order of filiation hatd been niade. Mr. Clare, an attotney, proved several payments by the defend- ant to Mrs. Cameron, on account of the support of the child, since the agreement of 1820. On his cross-examination, he admitted that the defendant had on several oCcasions expressed a wish to have the child to take care of. This was the plaintiff's case. llr. Sergeant-PsLL addressed the jury for the defendant, and after expressing his regret that the case should have been continued, after the suggestion of the Court, was proceeding to coninment on the evidence, wfhen Lord Chief Jttstice BEST said, that on the point of lawhe concur- red with Lord EBlenboroughin the case,citedby MVr.W'ilde-namely, the liability of the father to pay for the support of his child, even without any order of filiation, where he allowed the child to remain with a party. Until the time of his refusal, he thought the defendant was liable. The jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff- Damages 201. and costs. LICENSED CONVEYeANCERSt.-ENXINS V. SL.ADE. This was an action for work and labour done for the defendant, and for money paid for his use. The plaintiffis a licensed convey- ancer. and the work and labour dene consistetl in the drawing of certain deeds and papers for defendant; the moneypaid for his use was for stamps and law-stationery connected with the transaction. There was no defence, but Lord Chief Justice BEST said, that he did not think the plain- tiFf entitled to recover for any more than the money he had paid for defendant's use. Mr. Sergeant VAUGUAN.-lily Lord, for his professional services The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-I know nothing of his profes- sional services here. Llr. Sergeant VAUG;AN._My Lord the plaintiff is a licensed conveyancer, has paid for his licence and admission to practice, and is thereby recognized by law and entitled to payment for his profes- sional setviees as well as other professional men. The LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE.- I do not say he is not entitled to payment for what he does; but .I will not recognize his right to sue for it and recover it in this way. Why did he not get paid at the time, and why is he to be placed in a better situation than the con- veyancer at the bar, wsho cannot sue for his professional services ? I will not recognizehIsis right. Let him get paid how he can, this Court will not help him in such a ease. Thejury-then, under the direction of the learned Judge. returned h verdict for the plaintiff for 7i. Bs., being only the amount of the money paid ori defendant's accoott, and {or his use. COURT OF COMIMION PLEAS. FnIDA1. MAY 7. I1AW1ilDS V. IOWbAXD ADTD GIBES.