Court Of Common Pleas, We...
The Times, 1824-07-15T00:00:00

zerju:6 ire LORD CHIEF JUSTICE a(td a Svemal Jun,. rur. er etint VAUGHAN stated that this was ain action brought by the plain ti , who is a respectable attorney, to vindicate his character from certain libellous imputations which had been cast upon it by the defendanL The libels were contained in two letters, ene of which WaS written to a cheAt of'the plaintiff. AlMr. Sergeint PFELL observed, that as this action was brought to vindicate the character of the plaintiff, the defendant was wilting to acknowledge most publicly that the letters in question were written in amoment of irritation, and that theiimputations which they cast upon the plaintiff were altogether unfounded. His client was also ready to nmake any fit apology to the plaintiff for the use of thre ob- noxtot,s expresssIns. .Mr. Sergeant VAUGIIAN consulted with his client, and said that he was ready, after what had passed, to take a verdict with nomi- nal damages, and such costs as were usually charged between attor- ney and client. Mr. Sergeant PELL consented to this proposal. A The LOtD CHIEP~ JUST1CE thought that thie plaintiff in this rcase had acted very properly. His object had been to vindicate his character; and-the acknowvledlgmnent of the defendant that the asper- sion.s which he had cast upon it were unfounded would answer that obect nnuch better even than obtaining the heaviest danmages. T he jury then retrned a verdict fior the plaintiff.-Damages Is. (Before a Comnmoa Jury.) SATCHELI. V. LUCAS AND OTISZXS. Mr. PLAATT opened the pleadings. The declaration stated that this wasan action brought by the plaintiff to recover a compensation in damages from the defendants, the late Sherifls of London and lMliddlesex, for forcibly breaking into his hoosc and selling therein -certain property. The defendants pleaded "not guilty ; n nta point i.sue was joined. lUr. Sergeant WtLDE stated the plaintiff's case to.the jury; and Air. Sergeant VAUGT-IAN and Mlr. Sergeant PELl. apptared toan swer it for the deftndants. It appeared from the evidence given in this case, thatdaunages had been recovered by a person of the name of Shirley, from Thomas Satchell, a butcher at, Mill-hill, the nephew of James Satchell, the -plaintif on the record, on the 21st of4 May, 1823, in an action which be had instituted against Iinm for shooting a dog. On the 30th of fay, which was thoe first day of Term, and only four days previous to that on which judgment could be sued ot to levy those damages, Tbhom7Y*5tcheYImade a bill of sale, and assigned over his property to ov. -ere James Satcbell, for a consideration of 4'5L, which was o t u to hir in the presence of two witnesses. It was also rrOred, that upon the same day Possieesion of the property so assigned was given up to the plaintiff, and that it was agreed that he rhefld carry on the business of a btchishew onthellthofJu er remunnehinfehe as his servant, at' salary of 30s. a~ek Itpparilhat though no board had previously been upoT the premised Thomnas Satchasl, a board was put up on the 3d of June, having the name of James Satcheim upon it; and that the Danme of Thomae Satcbell hiad been erased from the cart at the same tihe, and that ofdJame Satchell substituted in its place. Witnesses were caled to prove that this transfer of property was notorious in the neighbourhood, but it was extracted from them in cross-examlnation, that they haa settled accounts with Thonias Satchel] for meat fuinished after the 30th of May, and that he bad givcn they re- ipts in hfs ow naie, and -aot in the name of his uncle. On thelthe ofr June, the property assigned over to James Satchell was seized by Wilon, a sheriff's officer, tinder a writ of execution isstued against the goods of Thoraas SatcheD, and was sold up along with several seep, subsequently purchased, though full notice was given to him that itdwas, the prortyof thn b present laintiff, and nbt of the person against whose goons the writ had issgue . Mr. Sergeant WILDE contended that tltis assignment wus a to,end flde transaction ; and that therefore the plaintivf was entitled to recover of she defwedants the value of the property which they had illegally seized, and ,also suchi tamages asi the jury should think heasonable for thef e fssive severity sith wbich the levy had been executed. 2 Air.Sergant -AU~AN, n -k cotrary side, contended that it wasevient frm te dtesin he4ie,that the assignment hasd been exectedby T Sachel fo no the pupose than to defeat the judg- menthichad eenbtaned airthh byShirley. Theassignnment in qestan ad een rawi~u no bya regular atfrn6y, buxt by a ~~jreyo, wo hd n reulA sk andwho ypt bad time to go and ~?des the hole rans?r.of hi~ ropty front begitining to end. l~'ias i evdenc, a~o, hatthejlaiT,f whd was valet to Mfr. IVre,thensbs for auoni never settledany acuts with a.aaaywges to, his nephew 1wtebusiness which" it aN si be adare on fo ifia ucer. The whole cuse wvas jgiof rau an dlhoeeuy, ndi coddnot Afil to excite suspicion that the principal witnesges to support the plainitif 's case were his nephew, and his nephew's father-in-law. He likewise contended thAt,. even, though-a full eonsideration haa been paid for* the pro- 'perty trans~ferred by the bill of sale, still if it were paid to defeat an execution, the bill of sale was void. The learned Sergeant was proceeding, when he was interrupted by The Lo-RD CHIEF JUSTICE, who said that he would ank the juryat hisstae ofthecas, wethr th~y elivedthebill of sale Mr. SrgeatWILE.~l you Lorshiplnteid toput the ques- tion o th jur sch amannr, Iwis to haeit put on the The Lioan Csrsxs' JUSTICE.-Will you permtit the jury to an- swer mny question?. Dlir. Sergeant WILDE.-If I do, I cannot do whiat I wish. I amt precluded from it whien the jury have delivered their ve-rdict. The LoatD CsstsF JUSTICm.-WCII, if Ilam to hiave a bill of ex,ceptions tendered in every trumprnl,y case, I will have it done in the old regular and formal way. You must hand In your excep- tions to me before the Court rises. Mnr Sergeant WIL.nE.-I mxust do what your liordshtip re- quires; and I will do it, though I believe I cannot necessarily be re. quired to do so. The Loan CHIfEr JtiSTrcr.-I don't know that; but I shall require It to be done. W'hat Is your exception ? For I do not yet uniderstand uipon what grounas you can pretend to excep~t. DIr. Sergeant WILDE. -Il except to your Lordship's leaving the question to thie Jury in the manner your Lordship hias just done. I contend that upon the evidence, an It Stands at present it is niot competent to your Lordship to call upon the jury, to detiae whiether the assignment is fraudulent or not. it ii hsot coihpetent to the de- fendants to dispuxte the plaisLtifi's propercty; for, as between the plaintiff nan his nephew, the assignmsent is a complete transfer, and upon that the defendlants are bound, as the conversion is complete. The Loani CHIr' h)STIrCE._Y0o. misunderstand my direc- tion, brother W'ilde. I left it to the jury to say, whether thiey be- lieved it to b't A fair and bona fide transaction ; and whiether it was nrot rip6n the whole a fraud. Mlr. Sergeant WILDE.-I did not so undlerstand it, my Lord; and even so, I consider it my duty to except to Your Lordship's directilon. AMr. Sergeant VAUGIIAN.-Mly brotheri Roughi, whio Is not in the cause, has taken down your L,ordship's words ; and they are exactly as your Lordship statedi. whr. ISergeatnt Rou&Gs.-T liope I am not intrutdinig on thle Courts weIstte that your Lordship left it to the jury to clecide whether the whole was natts fraud. I had the word "4whole'.' on my note, I and on that word I conceived your Lordship's direc-tion to tutrn. I amn sorry fOr.thus interfering in the case au. aia t-,uqt thaLt my Mo- tives in so doing will not be misintexrprtedl. The LO nD CrIsEEr JusricE.-l[ certainly intended to leave it in that way to the jury; and I amn altoost positive that I did so leave it. I appeal to you, gentlemen of the jury, and also to the gentlemen at the bar, whethler I did not leave it in the manner I Is ve described. Several gentlemen of the jury said at once, " We so understood it-we find it to be an attempt to defraud." Mlr. Sergeant WILDE seam repeated his determiniation to except to the direction of the leamsed Judge. He then wrote down, Iis exception, read it, and ofrered it to his Lordsbip. The LoRan CHIIEF JUSTrICF.-IS this fair dealing with any Judge? Mr. ergent xr.n.i ertanlyme-an to deal both fairly end The Lan Csra~ rsvex.-R spectfully ! You have, then, an dd ay f sowig your respect. Mr. Srgean W Dn.- At the samie time that I show my respect to ourLorshi, Iam elgiously houndl to do my duty to my client. 'JhcLoanCHIE JuTicE.-I desire you, Sir, to sit down. Youougt nt, ir,to reply upon me either directly or indirectly. I aaindeireyoutosit down; or I will adopt measures - Ar eren ID E.--I hope I shall never reply indecently upon any Judge bt I am dletermnined at all events always to per- f'orm mv duty to my client. The LOaD ClaliFa JUSTICE-" If you repeat on me, -I will send you to the Fleet." Alr. Sergeant We LDE.-( With great warmth.)-l. ami ready togo where your Lordship pleases; but I will say, that no threat from any Judge (and I aay it with the motpfun respect),-[ repeat, that no threat from any Judge shal dtr e,(and I beg that the warmth of my mariner may not be mitknfor I am more hurt than irritated) ;..T repeat again, that no threat shall ever deter me from sayn that which I conceive it to be my duty to say, for the initerest of minty client. I ami ready to go either to the Fleet, or wherever else your Lordlship should 'thtink it proper to send me. The Loani CHirEF JUST ICE.-I used no threat, Sir. But .. Stop this instanlt, Sir, or I'll send you thnere. Mvr. Sergeant WiLDE.-Your Lordship will act as seems most proper to your Lordship's discretion ; but I repeat, with the pro. fouindest respect to your L1ordship---a respect which I am always boiund to pay to a Judge underany circumstances,-.that I a'eebound, and am determined to domy duty to myclient cost what it may. The LoaD CHIEF JUTIsvCF.-I think I have great reason to complain. I have always been disposed to treat every body kindly. ily motive seemis to have been mistaken, or at least not fairly ap- preciated. Bunt I must say thiis, that if the practice be persisted in at the bar, of muttering against the determination of the Judge, in a tone of voice audible not only to the Judge, buit to pll around, I shall be obligedI to take a course which may be exiessively dis- agreeable to all partites conceredel and more particularly to me. Mlr. Sergeant NVILDE.-Thstt observation, I am soire, does not apply to me. I am in the rec-ollection of the bar. The LoanD CHIEF JIUSTICE.-Y0U have dlone it this very day, Sir. It is, and always has bean, my wish, as it is mny interest, that the business af this CDotrt shouild be conducted pleasantly; but this practice must not go ots. Mlr. Sergeant WVILDE again tendered hsis bill of exceptions. The Lo an CHIEF JUSTICE, repeating what he had before, said, "4I will not seal so absurd a bill ofexceptions." 1Dir. Sergeant WILDEc.-I think it, however, my duty to tender it to Your Lordshsip. TIhe LoanD CHIEF JUST rcE.-.-- repeat it aRain-"1 I will not ?eal so absurd a Vill of exceptions."1 Yon may sender it, and br'ing your ation,if yo-pleas, tipn thestatue -,and I will d1efenld it. Mr. Srgeat WIDE rquestd hi Lorshipto recollect that lie The Lon CHIE Jusr cE.-Cetainly. The erdct o th juy, wichwasfor the dlefendants, was then Di1r. Sergeant 'WILEr., hiaving repeated his observations as to thec tendency of the Judge's charge- The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE., not having observed that the jury were ~sworn in another case, said he would again put the question to thee jury. Mlr. Sergeant WIDrDE observed, "1 You canniot, my Lord: the jurY hiave been discharged, and are nowi sworn in anotliercause." DEWITT V. HENDRICK. Mlr. Sergeant FELT, stated, thlat this was ani ac!lon of trover brought. to recover possession of certain docuiments belonging to the plaintiff'. The circumstances out of which this action arose were as follow,s:-The plaintiff was a gentleman who had been deoputed by, the Greeks to obtainsa loan for their Government. Thirough the in. tervention of Air. CZomtesse, a watchmaker, in Solio-square, he eri. ployed Mr. Hermnan Hendrick to effect that purpose, andt, in conl. sequerce, deposited with him a power of attorney, certain fcrip reeciPts, and othier documnents, whicls it was the object of this action to recover. In the course of business the defendant allegedl that lie lead advanced 1531. 9s. 2d. on behalf of the plaintiff, and claimed to have it repaid before lie gave up) a single paper. In con- sequence of this claimi, a Air. Blanid waited on the defendanit, and asked bins how it had originated. After some coliversation he offereAd to pay it. The defendant still refused to give up the papers, setting up anothier claim of 5001., which lie stated -' lie due to liime on account of crsinalision. Commission Iutpon wblst ? 'LTp,'. -.mere miatter of muon- sliime; for M1r. hiendIrickc lad dtever advanc&td oie fiirthing to the representatives ofthtle Greek nation. He wvould pSrove 'to thensi that thte loan which Mlr. hlenil(rick had been em-ployed to negotiate liad fallen to the grouind in consequence uf that indlividual riot having taken an' Pairs9 to Put it f6rWard. After denouncing, in very strong ters,wflt ieculled the unworthy coiidLict of Dir, liendrick, in deluding this unfortunate Greek yenitl-emnan, the learned counsel said that the questions whlich the jury lhad to decidle, were-first, had the defenuatit ever received the papers in question ? anti if he hind. hiad he refused to give thiem up upon paXment of his bill ? If ithey determined both these questions in the affirroative, then they wou(Il give the Plainitiff such, damnages as wouild compiel the defenidanit to restore the papers which he hiad initrusted to his care. M Ar. Thiomas Blanil was theni put into the witness-box, and the- Posed as follows :.-I sini attorney for Mir. Dewitt. I becamie az- quailnted withl lim thiroug I Ar. Conitesse. I kniow Mlr. [-len. titick. He is a stocke4ubter. I kniow that MyIi, Dewitt or Mlr. Cumtesse applied to Dir. Hendirick to raise mnoney for the C,y. priots in thie early part of Mlay, 1823. AiVr. Hendrick was to taise a loan for Mr. Dewitt to a large extent ; anid for that puirpose biad received from him a power of attorney in Greek, a iiotarial cop in Engliuh, a Spanish bond, and sonse scrip receipts of which thec stamPs alone amounted to 271. 1 wenit with Air. Cointe8se in Mlarchi last to obtaini back these documents. I offered to pay hue isis bill, whichamnounted to 1531. 98. 2d. That is l~isbill -looKIng at a bill produced). Alr. Dewitteclaimed the papere ashisown, whernAMr. Hendrick then8said that he would predpoenothingtill lilasbill was pad. iMr. Comtesse then proposed to pay hitis by his acceptance. Hen-`, drick said he would take njo acceptance; lie would have hiis money. 1 happened to liave 4001. in my pocket- book. I kRew Mr. Coin- tease's res ectability, and I offered t oPsY him thlat or any othier claim lie might have against Dewitt. He then claimedt a debt for com-. mission as due from Comntesse. He dia not mention the suim. AllT. [Dewitt said, " Commission h you itan have no commission ; this loan has fallen to the gound. If YOu'll PaY me that for whi'chjo charge commission, P111 pay you commnission." The General t n reproached him for letting this loan fall to the grolaiud, by not carrying it to the Stock Exchange. Hendrick said, "Icul . carry it there, as not a fa.rthing of it hadb brn sold. If I had intro.. duiced it there as a genuine transactlon, I hould have been expelled from the Stock Exchange." He thenlt Produced a book belonging to that society, and readsa regAhation from itwarr11nta his aassrtion. AMuch conversa.tionnthies, V"~~ T--,l ..ia L) - I - . - -, j- t:,a~~~~~U LaJ 51cr. Dewitt s property, on accounit Of tr. COmtasse's debt." He said, I will give up nothlng till I am pai'd all my bill." Cross-examined by hlr. Sergeant WJLDE.-He did not say that he would not give up any of those papers, as they had all been de- posited with him as a security for his expenses. Hie said that the Spanish bond was deposited with him for the expenses he might inCur. I have talked with hlr. Dewitt about this power of attorney; but confidentially, as his attorney. I do not know froni him that this power of attorney had been signed in London, and that this eir- cumtstance was alleged by Hendrick as the reason why the loan had otsucceeded. AIr. Sergeant WrILDE addressed the jury for the defendant, and contended thut if one man laboured for the benefit of another, and advanced money on his account, he was legally entitled to claim, not only indemnity, but remuneration. Hle should prove that the de- fendant had donc this,and he should besides prove that the loan had failed, not on account of any want of exertion on the part of the DlalntifF, but on account of their having giving him documents from persons of insufficient authority. He therefore contended that the defendant was entitled to a verdict in tbis action. George Clarke deposed as follows -~I am clerk to Mlr. Hen. drick, who was employed by MIr. Dewitt to negotiate a Greek loan. I saw hinm employed in preparing Papers about it. The phintiff' rend and approved of them. lr. Hendrick enlpioyed other brokers to assist them in this loan. Brokers to emplo,yed are entitledi to a commission,. The brokers mentioned ina this bill (l-ooking at zk bill uce$tl were employed. The day after the ccnversatioL with 9ir. Blan~d, I went to Mry. Dewitt with-the papers. I p-repntewd a copy of the account, and said that I had the papers with. me, and would delivertehem~up onreceiving the amount. He said* he woulc'4 iot do it unless Conitesse' bond was also given up. IMT. Her.i.. Irick was almost entirely eagaged. with this loan frori. Novenq"'.,cr Crs-xmndbAf.S n EL- have been/ nine ing Some of the items h8ve not bee-n paid: but I consider them paid, because I have given the parties to whom they are due credit on account. The parties poited out several items which he kiie* to have been pai(L The loan feU to the ground, because it was posted on the Stoek Exchanze that thc parties negotiating it had no nut'ority from the Greek Government. It was so notified in a lettere from the Greek Committee to the Secretary of the Foreign Stock Exchan'ge ThC LoaD C}icaE Jusrpcr..-Oave you,blother Peltany body here, to prove the power of attorney a genuine document P Mr. Sergeant PELr. then said that he would call a Mr. SamSotl to prove -hot fact. AIr. Samson deposed that hie conceived himself entitled to the sum which it was stated that he had received in the bill which the de- fendant had given in to the plaintiff' He had not redeVed4it. Ile had asked 4endrTlck for it, and he said to witness, "I shall be the corn- mission out of pocket if I pay you. " I asked himn, said the wit. ness, "for 121. I Os. on thataccount." I know, that in consequence of the note which was sent from the Greekc Commnittee, there was great doubt entertained on the Stock Exchange whether the signa- ture of the Exarch to the power of attorney was genuine. ir. Samuel Josephs proved that he had seen the Exatch Joanni- chus sign the power of attorney, and the other parties to that deed re-execute it. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the deed was executed in Xing-street, Finsbury.squatre. (The power of at- torney in modern Greek, with a .1Os. stamp, was then put in.) Mqr. Sergeant IV r.i, in reply to this evidence, obeerved that it only strengthened the defendant's case, by chewing thathe was liable for expenses which had been incurred on behalf of the plaintiff. If he really wag so, would not the jury give him that verdict which would indemnify him against this liability? The paper was not proved to be of any value, since the persons who ha- signed it did not appear to have heen properly authiorized. Mlr. Sergeant PLLr. said that the questions for the jury to decide in this case were, first, had Dewitt a property in these papers ? se- condly, if be had, had Hendrick a right to retain them? and thirdlv if Hendrick had not, what damages ought he to pay to the plaint&ft for retaining tbem? He.was surprised athearing the defend ant say that this power of attorney was ef no value. If that were so, why had he made such desperate eftorts to retain them? MIr. Hendrick had no right to sar that these documents were of no Va- lue, since he received and still retained them as valuable documents from the Greek Exarch. They were of value not only as docu. ments to the Exarch, but alMo as JAs written on stamps. and there. fore virtually recognizable in an English court of lIw. It was true that the Greek Committee had denounced the parties who had con- tracted this loaR but did it therefore follow that it vwas a fraud P Even if it were so, was Mr. Hendriclk entitled to retain these papers? Ho thought not. With reference to thesubsequerit tender of the papers by the defendant, he held it to be nothing; because the demannd having oneebeen muade, and the thing demanded hav- ing been withheld, a sufficient conversion of the property had takea place. The LOaD C}lEsx JisrtSCx said, that there was one point in this case to which neither of the learned cortnsel referred, but which le thought might hereafter prove very material. That pointwas| whether a loan raised by petsonk who catte to this country as ere sentatives of a Power at war with another Power then in alliance with our Government, could be considefed I legal transaction e That point would be the sarme whether the parties atternpting to borrow money were legMlly authorized or not. Another point for thei? consideration was, whether the persons who in this instance had attempted to raise the loan were properly authorized, or whe. ther the whole was not a bubble and a fraud ; because if it were a hubble and a fraud, then there was clearly no cround of actios. After reading over the evidence for the plaintiff, and remarking upon the obscurity in which they were left as to the Circumstanrces under which these securities had been given to the defendant, he put it to them to say whether these securities were in themselves of any value. In the first place they would consider whether the in- strument which was called a power of attorney was so or not ? They, had no proof that it was a power of attorney any more than that it was a Greek song, unle.w they were able to decipher that which he was not, viz. modem Greek. There was no prodf that it was a deed, even though it had a stamp of 3OJ. upen it; for a stamp alone did not make a deed. There was certainly proof that some personshad signed the instrument, but who they were was not in evidence. On all the circumstances, therefore, the jury would say whether the wl,ole was a genuine transaction; or whether, after the notice they had heard read, it was not to be considered a fraud. If they did Uot think it a fraud, they might give a verdfct to the plain. tiff; but as no evidence of the value of this document had beetgigven, they could only measure. their damages by one article in the de- fendant's bill, which charged the plaintiff with the sum of 271. for engravines, to which, of course, he was entiled. The jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendant, todhelafrang, lite same ttme, they considered the whole transaction COURT OF COMNMION PLEAS, WEDNESDAY. JITr.V 14. COOKE V. HtTDSON.