Summer Assizes.
The Times, 1824-08-26T00:00:00

(BcfduC jl1r. Bar1O" HULILOCK.) aiie neociaraLtion statea, tiat on t he I1st of' December, 1823, the de- Wendats, witlh force and armns, broke into the dwelling-house of' the plaintiff', arnd stayed thiereini, making a great iioise and Ehsrurbance, for 201 days, anti seized, and conjvertedi, undt disposed of, to their owvn use, various of his goods, to the value of' 3001., wherebyv lie was hlindered fronm carrYhre on aii' transacting hiis butsiness. There was als%o a count for an assault oni Priscilla lfepper, the wife of the pllaintiff. Tlic dIefendi(ants hiad pleaded that thiey were "not g-oilie" either of' thie trespass or aLssaiult, andi on that point issue was joined. dr. PoLLiocK, in stating tilis case to the jury, told thciu that lie considered it to be onie whiich deserved their setious attention, and which claimed fronti their hands exempllary (thaiaiges. The defend. anits in this case were thiree persoss of the names of Marshall, Fell1, and Ios of J w tnilde first was a gloverin London, tile becond an auictioneier at Newcastle, andI the Ila.t a sheriff's oflirer lii tile santie Place. The pnIf `was originally a hiosieir at NewcaFtle. Unifor. tunatelv', le had fallci, itito enbarrassnients, atid htad beet, under the necasiy f sekig o h reieed rui-ithetii liv thie Insolvent Act. Havig ben hrow ino pisonin he arlevpart of' the year 1822, liehat soghtandobaiied is iscare trom pirison under thiat act ottthe211h uf Aetit, n te sint yer. Afte:r his discharge, lie re. turnd toNewcetl~ tok th Hal-Mon Inn, and furnishedi it with winie and spiirits, obtained upon thie credit of hiis friends. Alarhla!l, the first ot the dlefendanits oti the recordi, was appoititeil as- sigiiee to his estate. on his liberation froin prtSon. This gentlemlan, in conseqluence of toniic circumistancees which lit- dis. covered in that capacity in thec May following, mlovecd the Court for a re-h!earing ofhscs,aduo uhr-earing,l got himn remnanded to prison tor 12 imonths froiti the (late of it. During htis imprisonment, hiis friends; did not desert hsiii. His wif'e, whio mnight be consideredl as in a widowed state, and whio was left with fpour youtig chiildlren, was pirorceced by hris relations, and was by, their li berality enabled tocontiltie in xdie Hlalfdilooni lin,after her husband had beeti torni fromu licer. Thie defecnilant Marshall, upon liearing of'I thtese circumstanices, wrote down to the two defendants in Decembier last, andl authorized themIi, asi asslignee, to break i;;to the plaintiff's hiouse, anid to sell up every, thinig t isy shiouldi fiod within it. He wouldi prove to tlheni, that Fell and Ions dlid, in consequence of sich atudifority, break inito the lhouse in a very violent manner, atid thiat thee dlisposedt of every tlhing found uponi the premises by p ublic suctionl, even to tue bed ntii beddiiig of' -Mrs. liepper and liee famiiily. For this forcible eintry and sale his client was enititled to their verdict, asi well as for thie ititeriuption which they hiadi given to hiis basiuctss by shiuttinig up the lhouse for mrore than a fointight. His learned friendl might., perhaps. tell tiheni that Marishall claimed a righlt to thie property fouind in the Hialf' Moon as assignee unmier the Insol. venit Act If tits learned friendI diil so, he wosuld tell them to recol- lect thiat there was a wide ddTherence between the Insolvent Act and the Bankrupt Law. T'ire B3ankrupt Law enititledt ihe assignee to take everv tltiiig belonging to thie bankrupt until he obtainei hiis cer- titicate. Net so the Iiissolvenit Act. Wh'len a man was Once discharged under it, the assignee had no right en molest his per- son he miighit, hiawever, take the goods included in the assigtnment by the insolvent, but even that lie could not do without the order of the Insolvent Court. Whatever subsequentgoods lthe insolvent miighit acquire wverel"iable to the claims of his new creditors, and could nont lie seizedl till they rvere satisfied. Hie would now draw their atteirtion to the account whichi the defecirdant Fell lead given in t's the defend. ant .Marshtall, of his procee-dings under the sije, which Marshall had authorized-an account whichi Marshall hact been compelledl, but with gzreat dlifficulty, to file iii ite Insolvent Court, and which I rov- eml bey-ond dispute tchat the seizure hiad not been miade ifor the pur- poses of justice, or for obtaitting a liquidation of the debts of tite creditors at large, but tui the purpose of harassing the unfortnutate plairntiff's family, and of putting money litto the. defnd. ant's pockets. Out of 851. whlich the plalintiff's goiods had sold 'or, howtmcit did thecy thiink liad beaui carried to the credit. of the uufor- tunate inisolvent ? Not a single fart.linug Or, tire contra-ry, the dle. feondantL Fell had brought in the estate debtor to Ititiu, in a balanc of '21. 12s. 2d. Ilie admnitted, that ouit of Siti 8,51., whiceh he had just mentioneidco thiem, a qutarter's retit lhad been t'aid to tire landlord and some taxes, atiiountitig in all to 171. but the residue hiad been) swalllowed utt in thie exorbitant charges Of thxe defendant.s, which ex- ceeded any thiing wlitch lie had ever yet mnet in the course Of hliN practice. HIe wvould m-entioni a few of themn to the jury. There wasuneclturge of 101. for the men in possession ; thiere was'another of 251. for poscages, letters answering, jourentes, and inicidental expiirses thiere was another of 51l. for the irif'ormation affolrded by, Mlr. Glover; there wvas a fourth of 41. 4s. for the auctioneer ; and of II1. Is. for hiis two clerks. There were likewvise other charzes, imuferior in atitoutit, but all partaking of the siame character. These Ghargls foritted a key, to the whole Eratisaction. If Marshall had acted under an errotneous impression, and hiad thoughit lit to ask for informa;tion fromn tite Insolvent Court, he would hiave learned that he liad no righit to enter the pnlainitiff's house, anti tn turn his famnily out nf' disors. Now, after what lie hiad donie, and af'ter the division he had urade of the property amongst his co-def'endants, they- mlust be convinced that he had tinot acted fromn iiristake, but from the mnost heartless avarice andi oppression. If it wag attempted t palliate his conduct, by statinig athati.cit plaintiff hiad been) guilty om0 such fraud towatdS liis~ creditors, as induced the Insolvent Court to revoke hris dischairge, and to sentence himi to 12 mnonthis' limprison. Ment, lie wouldI theins that it was no paUliatioti of his conduct; but that it rendered it the more necessary iii hinmto avoid those Measures of injustice which he had punished with so miuchl severity whn they were employed against hiinseif. W'ith these observations, he should leaveC the case to thie jury, being qjuite cotivinced that they wvould inflict upon thie def endants sounr damages as would deter theM froml COMMhitig SiMilar outrage upon any individual in future. This leariied counsel then called the following wvitnesses J. B. Souter.-I know the Half-:moon Irn, in Mosley-street. In Decemiber last, it was kept by tite plaintiff's wife. On the lst of' D)ecetmber, I saw Fell, Ions, and two other men on the preminses. They took possesisionl of' every tliing. I saw Fell the. e on thle 8th. Fell s brother. who is an auc-ioneer, was then going to commience the sale. I served on ticnm a noticerto return the goods of" one H. Snowhill' which thiey- had seized. I then quitted thic premises~. The goods were their 4old. Cross-exaniniierL-Hepper, the plaintiff-, had been absent from Newcastle fromn the May previous. ! believe thiat he was in the Benchi or the Fleet. -ie had been a hiosier, but had failed, lie hsad occupied tire Half-moon inin previously tu his leaving Newcastle; he had gone to it in Noventhber. Grace Allen.-l was in the emiploy of Mrs. Ilepper in December last. She kept the Ilale-moan inin, 'and liad iltite so foar nearly a year. previous. Trhere were uvine, spirits, &c. on the premiises. M'lrs. Hepper carried on the business of the tavern ; it had fatecn olffin Con1sequenC.ce of hier husband's absence. OIn the Ist of' Decemuber, I saw lonis and Glover on the premiises. I did not see Fell. They took possession of' every t-hingt, and dleprived us of the use of thiem. Mrs. lcpper had hier four children its the house; the eldest was seven years old, andI the youngest twelve nionths. WVe had not a bed to sleepiupoir ; we silept a foitLight in tdiat weav, and thiat was a fortnight in the month of December. At the ena. 'ol that fort- tiight,Mrs. Happer received beck her furnituire from the persons who had bouglit it. Cross-examined.-I was three months in the house without seeing the laitil~ Te ftetttur wa inthehouse ak lien I wenit there. A pperconaintu th tems f te ale on the 8thi of' December, was rove to e i Mn.Fells had-witing, and piut hi ast evidence. The utheity hic Marhallhadgiven to Fcli to mnake this seizur was theti alled or byMr. Polock,atid produce(i by rn. Parke: tIe substaice of it ill b on nSr. Pollock's repy Sudyptesfrom the Insolvent Court were shen produced, and mae vid1V.ence; amotneg them was the account given iii by Fell ad Marshall of tise piroceeds of this sale to thle Insolvent Court. MNr. PAXtKr, for the defendant, complainedof tire very, exaggerat- ed stacetrient whlich hiis learned friend lied mnade of thiis case. whbat his client, M1r. Mlarshall, had done, he had done in hirf capact of' assignee to the iasolvent liepper's eistate, in which capacity lie fet htiniself entitled to seize all these, goods ~ in execution. One point which lie shiould submiit to their contsideration would be this-was not Marshall entitled to israke such seizule ? H4e contendled thiat he was; and that all he liadl done,according to the, evid=ic, was to give a simrple order to Fell aiid lot's that it should be md. Aind yet his leartiedt friend hiad thrown upon the defen- dant Marshall imputations of avarice and oppressio-had painted him as a monister of cruelty, whio could tuen na witiowed wife witlh her four childeren into the streets in tire month of Decettiber, and lhae described him as guilty of' thec m-ost atrocious and abominiable misiconductL As there was nothing in the evidence to support such allegations, lie trusted tliat tiiey would discard thiemT froni their recollection ; and that if they found thlat Marshall had acted wrongly, but lionestly, ins the disclharge of what he had erroneousoly coneived to be his duty, they would cenfine their da- tmages tohie narrowest limnits. He made these obseryations to them, supposi-ng that heshould not be able to establish his defence in point of law. Now he coiitendled, in opposition tcwhis learned friend, that the assignee5 under the assignment required by tIre Inisolvent Act,' had power to seize, notonly the goods which thelvrsolventbad attsit timeof his discharge, butalothose which heacquired afterwarda. Tbo learned coutselhere readth.e clause in the act uponvwhichhiereliediGr this POsiti6n, and maintained thatif hewas correctintheinterpretation he had put upon it, the defendant would be entitled to their verdiict. Even if be were net correct in his position, that thne afterwards ac- quired property of thte insolvent could be seized under the eass! gotn without application to the Insolvent Cottrt, still he-would ask nwohere was the Proof that the preperty meized in the Half Moon Iznn had been acquired by the insolvent subsequently to his discharge?2 If the plaintifF had acquired it subsequently by the bounty ef his friends' why had he not called those ftiends'into Coart to prove it?~ It could hiave been done with ithe greatetst ease, if it really were so;- and as it. had not been done, he called upen tbetn to infer that the. goods hiad belonged to the laintiff, whose fraudulent counduct had caused him to be remanded by thie Insolvent Act, before he soughlt the benefit of it. If they made suchi inference, then the swould fiad a verdict for the defenadants, withiout troubling his Lot -hip for hiis opiRion on thle coustruction of the act . but if they could not prevail uipon themsielves to dr.,w the inference which he ask-ed of them, te heshould submit withi deference to his Lordship, that in poist of law be was entitled to a verdict, even thoughi the goods had been ac.. quired subsequently to the dischiarge of the plaintiff. IMr. Baron HULLOCK said, that he certainly wOuld not decidle on, the present occas;ion thie point of law which the learned counael had raised. It appeared that the Inisolvent Court had a power over tl,e insolvent subsequently to his discharge; and the query now was, bad it the same power over the g-oods he acquired subsequently ? He wrould reserve the point for the learned counsel, and in case a verdict were given against himt, would give him leave to move for a Mlr. PARKE then I ,ta in various documentary paLpers from the In. solvent Court relative to the discharge, and subisequent revocation of the discharge, of the plaintiff by titat Court. Al r. POLLOCK contended that his case was strengzthened byr tilte evidence of the defendant. His learned friend had complainea that he had made an exaggerated statement of the facts of this, ease. Hie would put it to their rcecollection, whether his statemne;4t was exseg- rated or not? Had he mientionied to them Whtat was now proved i`n evidence, that lmre Hepper had been tur-ned ouit of her bed, and comnpelled to -leep on the bed-.stock for a fortnight in the tnonth of December, until. hil the humnanity of the purchiasers of her ptroperty, she was restored to Ithose goods whiichi the inhunmanity of the defenil' ant had taken frotn her? His learneg fr-iend had s'aid that iFwa thie dutv of thie plaintiff to show that the ptroperty seized itad been acquitecd subsequently to the assignment. He replied that it was for the defendant to show that it had beeni in the plaintiff's poSsession Previously to it. Mr. Baron fiv ir.LoCa thought ttitat the plaintiff was bound to show that fie had acquired it subsequently. Mlr. POLLOCKr said, that if such was hbis Lordship's opinion, lite had twelve or fourteen witnesses, whom he would cal to) eata,blism that fact. !tr. PARK E objected to his learned friend's going into itne a' afteIr lite hati cornmenced his reply. ca Mr. Baron HtULLOCa thoughit that lte ?ust admit the evidence. Several w-itnesses swore then called, 'who proved thiat they, had fur. nishted goods tc, the plaintiff subsequently to) his discharge urtder the insolvwent act, on securitv 'urnished by, his friends. I: likewise ap. peated that he owed a considierable sum of m .uey to some of thlem at the present time2 for the goodsi- so sient in. Alter Mr. K'OE hiad repliedI upon thjis evidence. Alr. POLt.OCK proceeded in his reply. fie comtutnnted with g Severity tin, the letter which Mr. Al-.-shall Itad stent to ' authorizing hint to nm-ke this seizure. " It is if~l, said AIr. Yarshlall to Mr. Fell, 1 to adv-ise you itow to c,a a t a distancee; but every thing belongingto GogHpe eog otr Ias I am s(ide assignee." Thiat, btt thly. he a ot nt er i- Ividual being joined witht him intt itat offc,lete proceeded 'rite Court will not allow mie, as asage,t ss u out execuioi(n for nty own debt without giviner ul Lthe assigeatp but as 2assi- nee I cart umke all. le trusted tihat he hdstiie themn that tim [defetidant hadl taken all anid ever-y thing hie coud in n the premir. sos, and thiat with a degree of' unnecesr v nionce and in- suIt, witiich deserved the severest reprehenshion. Bat lie went on.-,' If' you can ascertain whether thtis was antv vpart of' liis prolitrty before lie took thie benecit ftf the Insclvent ALE, it is mine." Iletre he would ask, had F"ell takert any pains to ascertain thtat point ? If' lite had, -hw it ha it not been protved titat thay e And if lie hiad niot, would tiot thley make himr pay in tdamna.te fur Itte itt. jury he hadt done the plaintfiff ~rThe letter-writer neXt said_" I ant, also rinformned thiat wihat he has obtained sidnce is the satiit, and I am inf'ormied tliat I can tak-e it wvithout apphiCatiott to the (.ourt."lInthat assertion thedefendant was incorrect in law,but as the point itad beta rtserved b y htis Lordship), he would not inake an observation itron it. The diefendiant thien went on to authorize Fell to r.ak the setzure, and addeld, in a postscript, what it was tinaterial that thiey should not forget- " When this is accomnplishted, sttu will pay vou claimis outt of' the proceeds of tite estate." Thiat led htm to thlie cor.sidleratio of the acco)unt which F.ll had given LheM Of his ClaiMS, anti Whlicht Marsihall had made evidence ag~ainst himself and Fell. by, fihitig it in the Insolvent Court. Wiithiout mioticing the difliculty which his client lItad expefienced in getting it put upon the files oh 'that court, litt woulEl merely' say, that a grosser fraud than was exhibited in that account, hiad never been presented to consideration in, a court of jus,- tice. No creditor got anly advantage by it. Fell was the onlt' per- sun to whonm it was a benefit. ~lViiether Marshall and F511 haid ayv secret tinderstanding with regard to it, litt could not sail; but he su,- poed they nmiusthave,from the exorbitant nature of the charges which were unblushmingly rmade in it. After condemning in the strongest terms- the cotiduct of all ttime defendants,and stating,that notwithestanmi. log sthe fraud of which tite plsaintiaf iiad beemi convicted,he wouldrather be that fra:udualent insolv-ent than htscruel, avaricio,us, and oppr-ssive ass~ignee, he called upon the jury to give such a verdict as would not only, reinstate the plaintiff in tite condition in whiichi lie had been be- fore the seizure. but would also atfford Ihint somec conmpenttation for thze insult, MiserY, aLnd annoyatnce whdch Ito had suffered in cotter- quence oh it. Mlr. Baron Hut.t.cia told thiejury., that the questions which they hiad to decide were, fiest-was rtue properti' sold under this execu- tion ocquireti subsequently t th Ee laititig"'s discharge iusder the Insolvent Act ? and then. 'if it were, what amnount of damnagesoug,lmt thbey to gire to the plaintiff? if titcy were of opinion that the pro- perty was acquired subsequently, to his discharge, they wvould sis' whlat the amount of it was ; and then they would consider what da- mages ought to be givetn for the trespass which haLd been cormnitrd ? H is Lordship then left themn so constdet of their ver,.:ict. telling them at thesm ie that if it should tuirn orat that the defendant lar- shallwajutie in point of law, their verdict wouid be corrected. in the propte; quitter. Thie J'teyv then reti red for ten minutes, and returned with a verdict for time ?laintiff-Darnages, 1251. (Br ore Mr. Justiee BAYL-EY.) LAtDLAW V. ELLI(TT. This was an action, to rec-over a compensation in tiatmages for the inj;u ry wh~ich the plaintiff had bustained in conccquene of the negli- gence or ignorance of the defendant, wvho limedhi.trmerlv acte-da eitis attorney. fUir. ALDERtSON Opered the pleadings. Air. SCARLETT stated the case to the Ju;ry. The plaintiff'was a fanner residing in the northern part of that county', knd the defen- dant was a gentlemian practisiniras an attorney ' in the Lown of'Rer- wick-upon.T weed. The plaintiff had employced the defendiat in, ar. action which he had been obliged to br-ing agiinst a iDtnatoo tite namneof Hall, on a promissory note for 1501. In thle Angust astrzes for 1822, the plaintiff had obtatined a verdict in that very Court foir that amnount. In thie subsequent term Hall obtained a rule, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why that verdict should not he set asi'de, aind a new trial granted. The rule was, hiowever, discharged, and the i3laintiff became entitled to Judgmtent in Hilary Tern', 1823, for h.is debt and costta, whiich amiounted togetker to '2721. Hall, whbo had beeni at large, upon hail, surrendered in discharge of it, on the l,2th of April, 1823, and was sim- mnediately commiitted to the custody of the MarshalI of thie King'Is Bench. At that time he meditated a fraudulent tranlsfer of his goodls, to defeat the execution if the plainiiff; but, dinting that lie could not, ebtain the benefits of the kns,olvent Act without sweaing hat e ha gien u allhis roprty to his credfitors, and havin som comunctons o conciene, wich lprevented blot froei takn afaie oth,he rot solil brthe atNorbt-a i,desiring him to see ~etle h coud no gethis ischrgef'rom the Plaintiff for a less aunttha tht fr wichliehadbee comited to prison. He also wrote, himsel,s h litf;ofrn i 201. for hts debt and costs. 'IThepanifto h rpsto ote defendant in the pre- sent action,whhabenhsatry in the action of " LamilUaw v. Hall."Tedeednimeaty advised him to reject it, as by so doing hewudb abe orcover a mnuch larger portion of his property. The plaintiff rejected it accordingly. Shortly af.- terward, iall's father offered to the plaintiff 1001. in dischiarge of hsdbt, irn5the presence of the def'endant. Elliott. The offer ws again refused. 'Pis friends were then peaigt a 15111. to the plaintiff, and to give him security for the costs, when the everit happened wliich gave rise to the pre~ent lactionl. Two termis hiad elapsedt from the time of judginent havinig bean signed against Hall, without his having been charged in execution ; and thie cense. qluence was, tlhut by the practice of time Court, lie bec-ame entitled to liis dis;charge by vtuper.vedees. As soon ass lie had obtained it, whiichl was on the 16th; of Mlay, 1823, ho forwarded a letter tO his father by the same matl in whicli he himself started from L'ondtn, desiring himn to break off aUl negotiations with Laidlaw, as hit person seas now hoec from, all futture arrests at the suit of Ltidiaw, and his goods were alreadv reinovedl into Scotlanld, where no English execu- tion could follow' them. ,When Laidlaw heard of' Hal's being liberated from prison, lie wrote to the defendant to know how that had hapypened. The defendant,withou~tgiving ant dir-Ect atwer to that question, replied in a letter dated 28th of M1ay, 1823, that Hali's liberation was an even-t that ilie ad itoreasoms toexpect, asbhehod never heard of his intention to comne eat of prison. This was a very curious reason for an attorney tEo give: he had got, the deLfeldrnut Hlall itito pio,ad he oug'ht to have kept hi, there tdi he had paid the debt dethicln,orhad been discaed ytt coDnsentof the plaintiff or by sorme l'rocess of law. An attornley se-s bound to have a competent knowledge of the C-our't in which _' prcie,ad oght to be able to adivise h:.s client as to the uneastiros whachihe ouh to-ae so benefit by the judgmuent he had obtained in hit.hA attOrney le maintaitted, was bound to know that when a dle- fendant surreuadred in diischarge of his bail in the vacation af'ter judigment, he rmut be charwed in excution within two Terms, of wich the Term in which ju~dgmentisige iS on. adth d. fendpant ins this case taken the proper Measures, nobOdy - could hoib but that tlie plaintiff' would have reovered the whole amontof hi tbe defendant, iimnat ered net vwhich, Hall11 had esiated 50fro n riso without satisfying the slightest iota of the plaintiff's demand, tough hc had previously made two digtinct offels at compromise, both of which had been rejecLed by the defendant's advice. Ladlaw, on fintloimg that the liberation of Hall was enLirely attributable to tile negligence of the defendant, wrote to him a letter, stating that he looked upon him as responsible for the loss which he hbd sustained. The defendant returned him an answer, whnich he (Mr. Scarlett) could not help describing as a very extraordinary docurment. [Ia that letter be adtnitted the reccipt of a very unfriendlY note frorn the plaintiff, but said that 1e must repel the istinuation which it contained, that it was his inattention that had enabled Hall to go at large. He reminded the plaintiffthat Hali's person bad rnever been his object-that he had never intended to put him in pr5sont but thlat he had been surrendered in discharge of his bail. He likewise men. tionel, that the last time he had seer the plaintE he hA told hinm that he had ordered a writof execauon against Hall, to be sent down to the Sheriffof Northumberland, in order that a ' treast invtettae" might be returned, and het might be enabled to proceed against the bail. lfe likewise informed the plailtiff, amonF several Other things, that the Judge who had discharged the prisoDer had acted under an mistake, and that the Court of King's Bench would be mIsoved to rectifv it. After commenting for some time upon this let.. ter, which he described as affording ito ground ofdetence for the de- fe:dant, the learned Counsel proceeded to state that the de- tendant did move the Court of Sing's Bench fora new writof execution against Hall, but that he gained Rozhing by las mao. tion. In the meanwehile he requested the plaint5i t5 pay his I bill for the costs which he bad incurred in suing Hall-ots which had been incurred for that very object whiclh the defendant ad de. ieAted by, his inroran,, or his negligec,o ybt obnd frthe paiontif, Pcarint tat aru action would ebrultainthinti an!xorthe a ount pori them acord.ingly, andtihluswas Baddlecl with enm b texpensecapoe ta 10.inaddition to the money which he lostin by r the asc t of thc Pisoner li-all. The deFeodanst, without Halkingfood any authority fromn the Plaintift, then o1roceeded against lIUs Lan i Sotland. Af'ter the suit had advianced to a c ertain stg,it was found neesary that a written authority siiouldbhe pro- ducea frOm the plainetcifefto ena,ble ittobeiccontinued. The defetidant theninfrmedtheplantiff of whiat he had been doing in Seotland, and irequested bini to send tehima the necessary authority. The p lain. tifF',however, not choosing to comiulnt his iuterests any furtlher to the care o f a man who had already nmismanagedI them, refused in dlo it, unless the defendant would indemnify himtr against all fuirther exesL The defendant would noteoneent to give siuch indleeanitv, nd' rhoseune was that the action in the Scotch court had bein discontirnued,and what had become of it he did not know. Laidlaw had ginice off'ered to a-sign over to thledefendant tie judgm-ent whiich he hati obtained against'Hall, if the defendant wouild pav hiim hi, dlemand; bitt Air. Elliott had constantly refusedi all such o&trs, and thli, plain. tiff was iow compelled to)come befnre'ajuryof his countrymen to ob- tain that compensation for the loss he had sustained, whiich he couldI n)t prevail upon the defendarjt to a4h,rql him willingly. The learned counsel then putinan adrolassintisfromnthe defendant, that he had acted a's atto5rney for the plaintiff'in the case of " Laisilaw versuis Hall," 50(1 that Jutdgment had been signed in it ont the 27tk of Februtary, 11323, as'if' of theo H-ilary Term preceding, on a verdict give at the Pleceding assizes for the county of Nortlhttsnberl-and for the plahatif. Mr. Alexandere M'Crery produced the original recognizances of bail in " Laidlaw versus flail,"lhe noticeof Hall's render,tin the 19th of Avril,\182_3, togctker withi the affidavits of service, which hie had received fromi theenecesgary officers of the Court of Rings Bench, he also put in the Cormnittitur togetlie- with the supersedco.s granted to, Hall for want of thte plaintiff' proceedting to charge him in execu- tion in) due time in the sarme cause. Air. BROUGHA3 salted if it wvas not the inteintion of the plaintiff's Co'unsel to pot the verdlict in evitdence?P Mir. SCAVLLETT1 Said that it was includedi in thle admission miade by the defenidanrt inl the cause Air. Bltouautam deniedl it : the judgment, and not the verdict, was admittedth ferndou ns Mr. SCwLETTthen loonked throuigithelirndou nt whic hehadpreiously put in, to see whether they furnished any lega evienceof te eistence of the verdict. Findting tihat they did nor,he ut i th bIl of cos,ts which the defendant had delivered in the ase f" aidlw V Hall," and in whiichi a charge was made for an oficecopyof te vrdict. Mr. ROtXttAS objected that thei was not such evidence of the verdct s ouht o b recive. T e het evidtence was always re.. 3uird byaw t hepsodced.Nowthe best and most regular evi. enceof he erdct ws te pss'o. t ought, therefore, to he pro. Mr. ustce BYLC hel tht te evidlence adduced was suffi. dent;but,by dsireof M. BR uGAM-i, took a note of the oh. Ai.Itoge was calledl as a writness, anti prroved that he hiad p aid 86.o ealf ot the plaintiff to the defendant for,his bilUn " Laidlaw t'Hl. " AIr. B R0U G I IA 3rSai d, thla t to c av e t Iie t im e of the Cour t, ie wotild now take an objec'ion to the pleadings, which he thougKht wostld be fatal to the plaintiff. It was stated in the declaration, that Hall had at\0yard personally, in court, and that two persons had t.hen comie, at., .'fa,d each pletdgedl themselves fur him as bail. Now the evidence furnished by the recognizance of hail provetlitthat Hall itad not ap. peareil personalUy in cotirt, baxt that the hail had been taker. in the country, before commissioners: hie heldi this to he a fatal variance. Air. Justice BAYLEY over-ruleti the ohjection. Mr. T. Gilchrist was theni called. He deposed as follows :-I wa-s attornev for flJat' in this suit. I recollect Hall beinig in prisonl. I received a letter trout hiim, written partly while in prison and partly when di-scharged' I received no ver-hal instructions from him to%et. tie with the plaintiff. Cross-examianed. His lease in England was ouit in October, 1822 hcl had a farm ini Scotland, where 'he lived ; lie sold his stock in Eng~leannd, and went into Scotland. I understood from him, thait if li et noprison, hie said that he would take the benefit of the in- solvent Act. .Re-exanfined.-Hall's fathleT is a mnan of some property. (This wlincAs proved Hall's hand-writing to somne letters.) J. Laidlaw.-.4am son of th-t plaintfff. I remember the action myv fathier hiad against H4all. Elliott was m-y fathier's attorney in it. 1 oft..n consulted with hiun about IL I wentin searchi of the witnesses by desire of Air. Elliott ant i m father. I paid him money for the exp-enses of thle suit. I recollect a letter being rec-eived fromi Hall after lie was in prison : that is the letter. I did niot take that letter to Ai r. Elliott; it was another letter. I left it In the defentlant's hand. [LThe letter was9 then read; it was dated April 14, 1823, and stated that the plaintiff should have 201. paid to himi by his brother Greortre, if'he would give tip the promissory note for 1601. imuitediately. It likewise contained a notificationthat the writer intended to take the benefit of the Insolvent Act, with all due speedl.] NVitness continued...j showed that letter to Mr. Elliott. I told him that my father wished him to stop Hall fromn taking thec benefit ,of the Insolvent Act ; he said lie couldl do it very well, as hiall lad property in Scotland, and an sway.going crop of corn in Eng land. .He promised to keep him in prison till all tIme money was pald. He' raid he couldi do it, as a rman ha'l been confined six or seven years in priyon under similar ciacumstatices. Cross.examir.ed.-Defern3rtlatitever said he would get them paid in Scotland. Hall lived abouit eighit miles distant from me; lie hiad soald up, and gone to Scottand in October. T c-an't swear that I carried the letter enclosedl in another from my father to Alr. I-fall.. I thiink that I carried it mysell' to Air. Elliott. I saw hziFn in person at his own house. I do not know whom I mct,-either in going in or going out. I cannot say, whether I was let in by a maan-servant or a woma.n-servant. '1liat is my hiand-writing. Hell's letter, I note thiink, was enclosed in another fromn mTy father, written bym by mly fWthe.' direcCtion. I recollect saying in that letter tha " om of us; wouild call upon hinii about it on the subseqtment, Saturday." I ami quite sure that I dlelivered that letter mysel ; it wantetb a servant. It was objectedl that Mr. BROUGHAM h lad no rigzht to make a part of that letter evidence, wvithoeut producing the wh6le of it. Mir. BtotGHeAMSe Aid, that to obviate any objection, he would hereafter pto it in evidence James Laidlaw...-I attended the assizes whien the case of " Laid. law v. Hall" wats triedl. Alr. Elliott acted as our attoney WVe ob- t,ained a verdict for 1501. I met George Hlall, the brothier of the de- fendant in that action, on the 16thl of M1ay last. He offered us 100l. to sette the action against his brothier. I refused it. I proposed that he should defer any further proposition hie hadl to make till the Wedniesday following. In the mean tittie, I mientionied the proposi. m;on to Mfr. Elliott. Mr. Elliott said, if we! were inclined to take IM01. he wouhld gie Halli or 10 month,s' time to pay the costs. He told us tha al wa oig into oair ternms now, andth lat he would 2nanacze him, if he dirt not pay up- the costs. Cross-examined.1- cannot sa'- oniwhiat day Hall's efFects WTer sold up at Norhamn. fie had sold up the stock on his farm in the IlalIe aidlw.1amn a nepliest of the plaintiff, and am on filendl terms IhEliott, the defendlant. I aecollect seeing Hlall immeiatey onhisarrival in thie north, after his dischlarge from prisn. Isaw llttt the next afternoon. I asked hIimn " wh-tt he had done with regrd to Hall ?" I said, " Have you got the mnoney, or not? for n ee that. Hall bas comne home." Air. Elliott maid "1 it could nor be possible, as lie lhatl heard nothing of it." WVhen I repeated that he hadL com-e home, he said that it was very strange, andthat he hiad nor received any letter from h lis agent in London nbout it. He desired a clerk to bringc a letter.book to me, that I mnight see the instructions he hiad given to Ihis agent in Londlon. The 'nsttucdions were read over-to mne, but I do not recollect what they WeIre. Cross-examnined.-4 undersitood that Mr. Elliott had institutedI a.nnie proces against Hall in Scotland that was before the trial camne on here. I delivered over a paper to Mr. Elliott; that is the paper. Flliott said he couldl not accede to it, but he would go over to Mr- Pattison, sond speak about it. R. Hall.-I am the father of James Hall, the defendant in the caase of " Lairilaw v. Hall." Mly son had 1001. in his pocket in Mlay las,tpy Laidlaw, it they could have come to a comipromise, hut they coul3d not. Tawasome weeks before lie camec froin London. Hssnhad very little property in Scotland after payinig his land- lord. I never heard, that besides the 1001., my son proposed to pay the costs of the action. Thevariousi letters read by Mr. Scarlett, of which we gzave the 8tub. stance in his opening spech, were then put in evidence. In one of them wras enclosed a letter from the defendlant's .agenti, Messrs. J. andl IV. Bromley, to the defendant, staring, that though Air. Justice B6est had dlisclharged Hiallfrom cititorly by a writ of tupemrsedeas. their special pleader mis of opinion that he had done wronlg in so discharging him, and had advised that thie Court should be moved on the question. Trhis was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Bisoua_:x,As sul,mitted, that upon the merits, as they then stoodi,thecase cosildnortgo tothe jury. 'rhoground of charge against his client was,,that whereas judgment isad been signedinl`ebruary last, bsutas of Hilaryterm preceding, l?ehad allow,ed allEaster term to elapse withut haring he efedantin xectinot. Now itwams for his negli.. genceor fr hisinoance n th pratic othe court in whichi he trans. actd bsinss. tht hisacton as roght against him. It thnerefore becae ncesary o cnsier vhatthepractice was upon this point. If t wre s ceartha th deendntcouldl have prevented Hall from gettin ou of prison under his peuliar circumstances as it was that the litiff had a tight t, fxix all in execution, then he would allow ta his client would be liable in tlhepresent action. To fix the aLttorney, it wast however necessr tohow that there haLd beeni co-ras ncligmrho.He contendead that nothing like this had been provedagns his client. The point on which H all had got out of prison, was not a clear lint a nice oint of practice. The rule he togtwas, tha the defendant smou'd be chiarged in execution wt... hit ?o teem fro rIs 'e judginent, taking the term in wSich id- -t wasactually signe "as one. Mr JstceByLEY thou~ght that no person who looked at the rule of coart c-ould entertain a doubt regarding its construction. Mir. BttotrGMA51 said, that M.r. Tidd, in his book on Practice, did not censid,r it o cle-ar a poin1t as his Lordship. ThcflearQe counsel reatd an extraet trom TidI's P,aaclie of the Kinr~s Beiach to prove hh assen^:ion. Was every attorney to know the idtffernce b twveen a judgment of the term, and a judgment as of the termr Mr. Justice BAYLEY thought thiat the practice of the Court was tOocleur to admit ofa moment'sargmment. flewould howeverreserve the point #br Mr. Brougham, if he desired it. ilir. BaoRoGAM then proceeded to address theJxry, contending that this case waes one of very particular hardship on the defendant. As an attorney, he had to conduct his client along a path of extreme direulty which waS very slippery to walk under the best of circum. tA&Rceq; that was beset with dangers on every tide, and in which one false step, either to the right or to the left, was certain to be attendTed defeat atid confusion. Now, if for asingle error, not procceding or rrom ssnegligence, butfroin doulbtsas tothe correctness of practire, Li attorney was to be rendered liable to his client for the tebt he Vas employed to recover, then, for the small sum which was paid to k-m for his labour and his expenditur evety attorney became the at5urer of a debt tothis client. From the evidence which had been 5lttsdya u b'tted to them, they would see that the error of which tedefiendant had been guilty was one into wh ich an attorney might have fallen,wbobadpaid the best attention to the interests of his clients. Aspecial pleaeer,whom be might denominatealearned person, hal de- cOred that the point on which Flail had obtained his liberation was nO'.acler polnt; end that the Jadge who had decided in fazv.ur of it 'Kisstaken In opinion. It was true that the Court held differently iti determined that Hall hatd been properly discharged, because the ieftndant had not pruceeded to charge him in executiorn in proper tt5e. The mere fact, however, of the special pleader's thinking that he Court ought robe moved on the point, evas sufficient to acquit his ofeet of the charge of ignorance or negligence, or both, on vhich this action could alone be sustained. There was, !owever, aeoltber point which he must submit to their considera- ton. An attorney was bound to do that h7bich in his judgment PpeareJed best for the interest of his client. Nor, did it follow that he best thing which Mr. gilliott could .do for Laidlaw wvaa to charge Tiall in execution ? He would satisfy them that in this case i would have been the very worst step thatAMr.Elliott could have taket to advauce his client's interests. H[e would likewisc satisfy thema that Dlr. Blliott had taken -such a course as would, bat fo Laidlawls own foolish and absurd obstinacv, htve given hin a better chianee of recoveringi his money than he would eve have had by charging Hall in execution. Air. Elliott knev so much of the law of Scotland as to be aware. that if hi charged Hall in cxecution at the suit of Laidlaw, he should be bar. ring Laidlaw's right of recovery upon Hall's Scotch property. II would erove that fact to them in evidence, by the testimony of sotmi entlemen of the Scotch bar, who were well acquaireted with the law of Scotland. He would likewise show to theni, that Mlir. Elliott had obtained a judgnient against Hlall's Scotch pro. perty, which he was prevented from prosecuting further, in con- sequence of Laidlaaw's refusing to sign the mandate or power of at. torney which the Scotch law required. If the plaintiffhad not, with the most pertinacious wrongheadedness,refu5ed to give that mandate. he might long before the present Imoment have levied execution on Hall's property in Scotland. If,therefore,the debt of Hall were lost tc the plaintift,it was owing to his obstinacy, and not to the negUgenceof the defendant. Theolearned gentletnanthen proceeded to comment at somne length upon the evidence given by the plaintiff's witnesses, and contended, that if they should be of opinton that the plaintiff -as entitled to a verdict, they must not estimate his damages by, thte statements which those witnceses had given to them. His learned friend had told them, that the two ofters which Hall had made to compromise his debt had been rejectetl by the tie"endant's adivice. So far was that from iaving been prove(d in evidence, that it was aetually proved, that when he wat told titat Halll had offered to pay 1001., he had said he would give him every acconmnodatien in his powver with regard to the costs Undcer these circumstances, he IcRl iis case with confidence in their hands, being quite certain that they would dO equal Justice between both parties. lr. Hunter,a writer to the signetat Danse, in Scotland, prosuced a quantity of papers that had been exhibited in the Sheriff's Court in Berwickshire, in the cause of " iaidlaw v. Hall." The proceed- ingi in it were commenced on the 30th of May, 1893. He had been desired by Mr. l.aiilaw to conmence them in the preceding April. but hadl been prevented fron doing so by his own ill-health, and his wish to take the opinion of counsel at Edinburgh regarding them. After the suit was commenced, a verdict was obtained in favour of his client on the 10th of Julir. That jtudgment was put in and read. One of the reasons .aleged for decerning it was, that a verdict hwld been obtained in the lnglish courts acainst Hall at the suit of the same-plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had not at that time the defendant's body in custody for the satisfaction of his debt. Mlr. IHunter then continued.-After that judgment was obtained, a reclaiinirg petition was put in by Hall, whicil carrTed the matter into a superior court. Iall then called upon the wi;ness to produce a written mandate from the plaintiff. WVitness had not such man- (late. He had not considered it necessary, as it was seldom calle( for; when it was called for, it was necessary to produce it. As he was not able to obtain the mandate, the process was dismissed on that ground alone on the 27th December, 1823. There was no pro- cess by which he could attach Hall's goods without it. On cross-examination, he stated that he hatd not served 17all ivithi a summons to appear until the 31st of lMay. Hall's effects were sold on the 25tlh of July, by advertiseinent_lie believed for 4731. Be- fore that time he haIl lodged his reclaiming petition. Witness was told by one of Laidlaw's sons, that their father would not stop the sult, but that he wouhl oot be responsible for the expenses. ,Mr. Donald Sinclair, clerk to Mr. Elliott, proved that some time after Hall had been discharged, old Laidlaw came dlown to his master's office to converse with him on the subject. He was not present at their conversation, but as his master and old Laidlow were coming out of the office, he heard them talking about sending the record, in the case of " Laidlow v. HTall," to Air. IIunter, of Dunse, and his master saying that he had the strongest hopes of getting him the tnoney. His master and old Laidflaw then shook hands; and Laidlow said, " Wl'ell, well. I don't care what you do, if you gct me the money." On the 7th of August, 1823, he went to the plaintiff's house with a copy of a mandate, which tise plaintiff refused to sign, until lie had taken advice. Alexander iMlacveigh, Esq., an a(lvocate at the Scotch bar saiti that by the law of Scotland a fbreign judgment (and an English juuig- tnent was considered a foreign one) was only taken as auxiliary evi- dence to establish the plairtiff's claim. If a p *ty ha(i the body of his debtor in custody in 'lngland on that judgment, his action in Scotland cotild not be maintainied. The ground of that (lecision of the Scotch law was, that in England Cthe party coultl not have judgment against the goods at the same tine that he had judgment against the person. In Scotland a party had his remedy at one and the same time against the person, goods, and lands of his debtor. Two other Scotch advocates were called, and gave similar testi- inony.-_This was the case on the part of the defence. Ilr. SCARLa TT saah, that lie had before put in evidence the bill of costs which the defendant had sent in to hi3 client for prosecuting his suit against flail. He merely wished one item of it to be read. It was that chated Silay 21, in which Mir. Elliott charged the plaintiff with the expenseofmovingfora new writ ofeap)ioead satisfcieundum against llali.-It was read accordingly. Afr. SCARtrTT then rose to replY. So far was his learned friend's evidence from having upset isii case, that it actuall7had established it much niore clearly than it had originally been established. ilMs learned friead had proved, that after H;dl had been discharged, a sale of his. good ha(l takcn place to a niuch larger amonnt tian the amount of the debt whici his client had en(leavoured to reco- ver against him and that fact alone was sufficient to entitle him to their verdict. Alter the defendant had discovered the error lie had committed, he had manufacturedi his own bill in the best manier he could to make up his own case. Fortunately, however, he had isserted one i em in it, which macle up the plaintiff's case. Ilis learned friend had told them that Elliott hail never had any inten. tion to charge Hall in execution, because he knew that If he hadh cliargetI him in execution, lie could not have proceeded a-cainst his goods in Scotlanid. If this were so, how wvas it that he had moved an the 21stof Miay,for a new writ of coapiasadeati.sfaciendunt against Hall,wtrenheknew that if he vucceeded in his mnotion, it must bar liis chient'schance of recovery against Hall's Scotch property? That he had cdlone so, was proved by his oown bill and bow MIr. Elliott's decla- ration upon this point were to be reconciled with his practice, ie, for one, coulg not see. As it had been distinctly proved that fHall liad sutlicislt property to satisfy the plaintiff's demancd at the time he was in custody at hIis suit-as it had been proved that he had been anxious to coine to some compromise with him about It whilst lie was in prison, though lie liad exhibited no such anxietv about it since he had'got nut-as it had likewvise been proved thatHall could not have got out if the defendtant hail acted with due deligence in his profes- sion, he contei(led that nothing could be more reasonable than that the tiefendlant in this action should remunerate the plaintiff for the loss which he had sustained by his means. Mr. Justice BAYLEY then stimmed up the evidense. The first point which the jury ivould have to consider was this--otught the de- fendant to have chargetl liall in execution. or ought lie not ? And the next was, if lhe ought to have done so, and hail failed to do it, what dainpaces had the plaintiffsustained in consequence of his neg- ligence ? If they thought that the plaintiff would have consente(d to accept the 1001. whicli hadl been offered hin in lieu of debt and costs, then they would confine their verdicetto that sut ; butif they thought that he would not have been cont^nted with it, then they would find such damages as they thouight would ineet the justice of the ca"e. tIe must say thzt this was rather a haid ease upon the defendant, for it was very probable that he hail fallen into the trap which H allappeared to have set for him. Hall, in one of his letters, had declared his intenion o: taking the beneilt of the In- solvent Act. Now, though that letter diid not contaiii a l1cgal notice of0 is intention to clain the benefit of that set, it certaitily was such a notice as was calculated to throw the defendlant off his guard, an; to prevent hitn froni using that diligence with respect to charging him in execution which he ought to have used tinder any circum- stances. He i entioned that eircumistance to them in order that they might not deem it necessary to give extravagant damages. After several other observations, 6e left them to consider of their verdlict. The Jury retired for half an hour, and then returined a verdict for the plaintff-LDainages 1501. SUMAflfER_ ASSIZES. NEWCASTLEJUPON-TYNE. IAlOS)DA.y Arca. 23. HIEPPER V. MARSHALL AN'D OTHERS.