Secondaries' Office, Cole...
The Times, 1824-12-14T00:00:00

The plaintiffs, Alessrs. NVebb and Price, of Doctors'-Commolts. who are agents for the sale of ecclesiastical property, sought to reco- ver the sun of 1041., as a remuneration for work and labour done, and services performed for Dr. Wilkinasn, of Essex, who is a dig. nified clergyman of the Church of England. Alr. Sergeant WrLnDE stated the case for the plaintiffs. The de- fendant was a gentleman of great respectabilitv, the advowee or ad. vocatas of the living which hc held himself. In 1823 hc was de- sirous of raising a sum of money upon the pronerty, and for that purpose applied to the plaintiffs, who were well- nown and respect- able agents. The jury were, perhaps, aware that the sale of such property was, from its nature, attended with more difficulty than that of most other property. It was most difficult to find pur. chasers for it, and it was generally incumbered with impedi- ments in the transfer. The usual mode of remunerating agents for the sale of ecclesiastical property was to give them a cer- tain per centage on their success in finding a customer; and of course, in consequence of the greater diffictulties and la- bour encountered, a larger compensation was expected than was given in cases where other property was concerned. Wh-en the agent received nothing for his trouble upon failing to suc- ceed, of course be was entitled to the greater recompense when he succeeded in his search f'or a person who was willing to advance money or purchase. The defendant, who, as they would perceiv vas a man of business and experience, having failed in his own 2f- forts to procure a purchaser, applied tG the plaintiffs in 1823; and their efforts were continued through that year, until Januarv in the following year, before they ywere successful. The money advanced upon the advowRon was 4,2001., and the remuneration promised to tbcplaintiffwas2? percent. upon thesum obtained. This promise was contained in aletterin which wereused terms to this effect, " I1haveno objection to your terms of 24 per cent. provided Lhe business is done quickly." Now, if thCTewereno law toenable the plaintiffs to recovera compensation fortheir industry, they always considered tbe wordof a clergyman stronger than any act of Parliament. It was notobjected that money bad not been obtained by means of the plaintiffts; it was not to be charged against them that there had been any delay on their pasLts but it might be said that the negotiation which the plaintiffs had first introduced was broken, and had ceased-that the second negotiation was distinct, and that thedeferndant's contract to pav two and a half, er cent. did not apply to it, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any such remuneration for the labour thev underwent. The learned Sergeant then read a number of letters, from which it appeared that a long correspondenee had been maintained on the subject. The defendant requested that an advertisement should be inserted on the subject, as the plaintiff:s should think fit to propose. Mr. J. W. Freshfield, of the firm of Frelhfield and Kaye, solicitors to tha Bank of England and other public companies, tat. ed, that an application had been made to hinm on the 31st of De- cemnber, 1823, by the plaintiffs, for an advance by mortgage of a sum of money upon propertv, consisting of the advowson of a rectory in Essex. The applicationi was made to him to obtain an advance from the Bank of England, but he ret4rned an answer that theB,Bank did not advance such small sums, neither would it have any thing to do with such property. Ile, however, mentioned that a mer- chant was Ailling to make such advance, if the security vwas good. A negotiation took place, but it brqke off for some time. It was subsequentlv renewed with another of the witness's clients, and completed. '[he sum advanced was 4,2001. at 4A per cent. by the Globe Insurance Company. The net prodluce of the living was 7001. per annum, but during the period of the high price. it was made to produce 1,3001. Mr. ARCHIJOLD, at great length, cross-examined the witness, witb the view of showing that the first negotiationi had broken off entircly and that the second had becen commenced without the aid of tbepiaintiffii; but Mr. Freshfield said, he considered it a continuation of the same transaction; that it was introduced as a thing already known, and would not have taken place hlad it not been for the introduction Pi the defendant by the plaintiffs. The business was finally con- cluded by Messrs. Scottand Clayton, the defendant's soliciors. The plaintiffs were clerical agents acting for the sale of ecclesiastical pro- perty, and the recovery of tithes, &-c. They were neither brokers nor solicitors. This was the plaintiff's case. hlr. AitCHssOLD submitted th.at there was no evidence of wtork and labour done by the plaintiffs to entitle them to the remuneration which they claimed; but even if thev were entitled to any thing, they were debarred by the statute of the 12th of Ann (2 C. 16, sec. 2) from reaeiving =ore than 5s. per cent. The section pointed out was then read by the Secondary, and is as followsa:-" And be it fuirther enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all and every scrivener or scriveners, broker or brokers, soli- citor or solicitors, driver or drivera of bargains for contracN. who sball after the said 29th of September take or receive, directly or indirectly, any sum or sums of money, or other reward or thing, for brokrage, soliciting, driving, or procuring the loan) or forbear. iag of any RtII or sums of nmoney over or above thc rate or value of 5s. for thic loan or forbearing of,; 1001.- for a year" &c. The act then directs that the penalty ef20J be inflicted for each olfenee. This act, the learned counsel contended,- made it evident that the plaintiffs, at all events, were entitled to no Tnore than 5s. per cent. Air. Sergeant WILDn and Ms1. STE9PIS contended that this case jy no means came within the statute cited, wbich was the wella known Statute-of Usury.gr Air. COLLINrGRUDGE, the Secondary, was of opiniori thit the act applied to tlte plaintiff. The case of the latter depended upon the contract for an allowance of a per centage, and they could not re. cover more than five shillings per cent. for their seivices, Illr. STEPjEi said, that in a point of this impertance, he trust- ed the learned Secondary vould take such a note of the case, as would enable them to have it deteruinmed by the Court above. Air. COLLING1iDGi said le slould. le then told the jryit was clear that the defendant had been benefitted by the Uadvance of 4,2001. in consequence of the nl3intiffs' services, and It was for them to say whether they ought in fairness to receive a lexs sum than five shillings per cent. for it. The Jury assessed the damages immediatelr at 101.10s., being five sli~llings per cent. upon the sum obtained. SECONDARIES' OFFICES COLEAMAN.STRFC:Tl nCr 1t 11iPrORTANT Q.UESTION AS TO TIIE TRANSFER OF ECCLE- SIASTICAT. PDfl--1P' WIERB AND PRTCr V- WvrT ITvv