Court Of Common Pleas, Th...
The Times, 1824-02-27T00:00:00

ar ll. !ice t.st presided in the absence of the LoRD CtIErt TFliu,S2iil.t . 5. OG5 ASD Cltlttrs). Ir-.Sergeant PEL rtated that this was :nact.on .f trov CrtorecoVer the value of a bill of c!`ha-ege fromn the defen;iants, who were both mnibers oft, re [-luefos .tiff'irtruts hebillte a gre number of bilMr Of echang, for their otUal nierMomm'dation, to `e o whi.h, drawn by CU u,Chton and v weeptcd by gh, gate into int t' s2ion'd of te'laintof g ive ililaintiffw wilwd to hat the hill dia , co;,nted, rid f t I t p see dee t'ats,woducatet that pers hai en tceauded wo fit.."LSedetos pwillintgnes to accttvodate plaintiff, pro.- tened htn tas 'atosied `th at the nacte es nf the d-awcr ain acceptor of rne bill were in t heand-writing ofthae plaintiff and deft-n,an o t VW,s dle e airned t'-at inquirv sh:tolld be made on this point at the banki~ng-hnotl uf .Messrs~. Coutts andi Co.. whfere the bill was made paal. Bufr this dpurpose the plaintiff'inst-sted the bill to the rare of hi h frTemf t1er uford, who accompanired Swetron to the houVs 'f a-r- th utie and Ca. There Sweeton, havi'sg got tlh bill into hi. hissds, refous d to give it tp again, alleging ttat he was autTho- trZeS tno retain it by the defendants, who rstated that t es liadi born edraudetd ofTit .li Sweetoin produced two lettern written 'b the de- wfendaints, to sow that he acted under their directions. Fro that time to the prtesent, the plaintiff had never scen any thing of the bill. The lear%ed cour-el taen called the bhyowing evtidence t-. Mtte mo0tde Burford deposed that he was the friend of the plain. tiff. BY his desite, he accompanied the plaitttif, Ise-ton, Mr. Walker, the illfrot- anto Ant.nbus' a and a person .rated Teutiil, to le"rs. C1ot and Co.'s oulse, some tiw oue in September, 1822. Then oir.e ne n ad weq enevr. terEd r. h I touwse, the rest of the partv reifait ed loutside. The witness hbill, and wad cxhi in of ehange for cl which Caa-dswn hr Mr. bav-Mhtnen, and accepted by Ali. Legh, to Mir. Xnotb,a, t tone othe partners of the house, arn asked r itnether th- e,lyrs of the drawer and acceptor were written by those 2entlemen. lie did not recallect what rerlv Mr. Antrobu made. bta t Itse pust to letter into t \ldefendarnt's hanls,who as soon as lie hadlopened them, tool, th bill from Mr. Antrobus', iuands, and at hted thet he was au thorizeel to retain it by the defendants, wHeo would indemify hit for thle conoequences. Mr. Sweeton wa,-S arehended. ona ch.rge f felobsiouslv stealing the bill, and was examiined at Bowv-street, anti dischargc'A C-em.J .rmined b -Mr. tiergeantlA G.sd tht .hew Thesplaintiff did not tell the witne(s thiit he had got thie bill fromi a person namied Far- Iuharson. J ie P.id -Itat Mr. Legh was a noung imane vorti 27,0001. a ar. Ae trobus said that hevr. Clasughtoin sat in the Hotise of c'omr,ns~,r r. brth a booug of Newton. Cotttsc rnt Co., crroulred oth iunderstnod what his learned brothler Oingt the taking of th br. Legls borout. He spoke of N-Newton a% Urtv.m on sego .;th of.X belong 1g8o1r. Lead h. (A laugh.) he alter date. lIr. Claughton had told the witness that it had been defrauded of the bill. To letners Cwere here put in evidence, which the dleft dants' coun- rcl admitted to he written by their clints. Thev directed 3 Ir. Srweeton to getand retain possession of thebill of exchnee, on the gtround thaI they had received no consideration whatever for it. MIr. Sergeant VAUGRtAyaddressed the jurv for the defrndants. dis cients intendeelto re.t their defence upon the sins !hat the pain- tffhad gven noconsideration for tIin bie l of wh ich the defendants had been orieinally defrauded by their acents le woulid show tbta the plaintiff, so far from being a person lIkelh to be possessed of a bill to so large an amount as that whichl as the foundation ol the action, was at the time thc transaction took place living within the rules of the F!eet prson ; and about a month prevtous he bad taken the benefit ef the insolvent debtors' act, whien, as wosild appear from his ichedule,his debts amounted to 14.0001.Lard his effects were notelingr. lVhen he had prov ed thJose facts, he shlould. he iniagined, throw upon his letrnred friend the onlts of prosing that the plaintiff h:d given a co=mcleration for the bill, which he apprehended it wvoull bc some. what difficult for hin to do. DMr. NiTalker, the attorney fot the defendants, statedt that knowing -that his clients had been defrauded of a number of bills ofexcitange to a large anount, one of whichi had got into the hands of the plaintifT, he devised a schemne to get possession of it. This schenie was to get Sweeton introduced to the nlaintiff aLS a person ltel; to liscount the bill. He succeeded in getting Sweeton introducedl t the plaintiff, and the witness himself had se. veral intervtews with him. On one occasion the plairtiff sid, if' Sweeton aY.ould get the bill discounted, he wotild give him .;50 t'Ui- neas. ard the witness 200. *vWhen the party went to Alessrs. (Coutts's to identify the hand-writing, the witness proposed tltat the piahn zff should go into the house, but lie refused to do so, and sent * r.. Burford in. tross-examined._He was to receive 100i. for devising the scheme. Samuel Sweetman corroborated the evidence of the precedirg w.tnesses, and addled, that the plaintiff told hiim that if he would ret the bill for 3,5001. discounted, he could get ethers from the same party who had given him that. henry Brow-n, the son of the Warden of the Flcet-prison, proved isat the plaintiff was confined in that prison for debt from February, 1822, to June, ]82!, when he xras discharged from the prison under the Insolvent Debtors' Act, but detained in the rules under an ex- tent froni the Crown. Thomas Coran, clerk to SIr. W'alker, produced the schedutle which the plairtiff had sworn t before be wvas discharged under the Insolvent Debtort' act. His debts vere there stated to anmount to 14,7;61. There were no effects described. .irs. LLonstalE deposed that she once kept the house at the corner of liudgatedhiU and Fleet-market. It was within the rules of the Flect. The plaintiff camne to lodge with her in April, 1822, anti rernained till MUay, 1823. During that tiue he contracted a dcbt of 1201. to her, which still remained undischarged. Mr. Justice PARR said, that a sufficient case had been tiade out to induce hiim to call uDon the plaintiff to prove that he had given a valuable consideration for the bill. Nfr. Serneant PELL. then calledl 'Mr. Eveth, scho deposed that the bill which was the subject of tire action was delivered to him, along with othess, to the amount of 10,0001., by Mr. Farquharson, in the presence of .'1r. Claughlton, for the purpose of being discounted. He procured 1,0001. to be lent upon it by the house ot Sir Peter Pole and Co. In atldition to the bill, he save his own promissory note to tile house of Sir Peter Pole, for 1,0101. He had accepted bills for Mtr. Ciaughiton to the amount of 30,0001. Mr. Claughton promised to give the witness landed property asa secutity atgainst the acceptances of those hills - but he did not do so. The witness was therefore uniable to take up the bills, and was obliged to take the benefit of the insolvent debtors' act. Several other witnesses were caUed; but their evidence was of little imporrance. AIr. Justice PARK, in charging the jurv, observed, that when he considered the circumstances of the plaintiff living in the rtules aofthe Fleet at the tinre the transaction took piace, of his offering such a large eum to get the bill discounted, and of his refusing to enter .Mcssr. Coutts's banking.holLse, he could not get rid of the belief that he had given no considieration for the bill. The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendants. UOYRT OF CcOMMON PLAit zr ... -,.- r-t -