Law Report.
The Times, 1824-01-28T00:00:00

*iLe IAoRD UlANCEIi.01t eaase inatne s llauur v..YX "- r* tion regpecting two gentlemen ef thenameof Prost, aolitoT- at 'ull. an-d itzppeared to him tbat he could not hear it out of its cour2s. If the apygumentg in rases of bankruptcy went on to the length; of, that In Grenisteadi, the Court might as well shut its doors to every thing but binkruptty, He diibu4 complain of the length of time.which that case had taken rtp, and lie .knew that coansel had a rigbt tobe. heard, but every court in t.he kL>yrdum took upon itself the libetty of controlling tl,e number of cunsel who should be heard- If the counsel in the peuition rpecting thleset solicitonm vere content to be heard one only on each side, he wouldt undertke tom hear It out of its courre, otherwise it must be taken in the'ordinary coluse.. IN THE MSATTSaER OF SiR GREGOBYPAGE TtrBNEg,A LIINATIC. The LortD CiAwNOErILOt agreed to hear .the petition of the mother of the innatie and of Mr. Beron, who had ma2ried: Anne Page, sister of the lumatic, traving that they maybe allowed ts go into the llater'q office to oher jhcmselves as next of ):iU for commst- tees, on Thursday moning next. The SoLIcsToHI.Gw lSA.-wasnot aw3arethat.the ptiion would be opposed. Ex-PARTE URIMSTEA,, FN RE HOWFARD AirD 01Bh BAXK- )5Uk'k-. Mr. HonwE resumed his addreas for the assi' eeS agains -the petition. iS prelhrninarS. observations were applhed to the cententit ofthepass-bookand the argument founded rponitbytliecounsel who had gone before him on the other side. 'lhey said that 'Mr, Gibbs was theperson most capable of explaining- the. -book. . doubtedly Mlr. Gibbshadobtaineahis -certificate, anwivasquay4stl1 to Die a witness;. but there never was a man livinp whose testi55=i ought to be received wfith sO much suspitcini if their hypothesis w?t-! true: for the'y first reqtrred the Court to believez that Mr. Gibbs had, by the most unjustiflalile fraud and delusioni 2,eate& his simople and unDsuspectinag frieiil out of the suins*d 32,oZL. Burt front tha anXers sflhich- Mr.(3ibb5 gave hi exeplitiIig theen. tries and erasures, lie not only praved qhimself to be unwocrthy of -credit but he stood stainred and pol]1ute with the mnost direct and manifest perjluy-his whole evidenc e must b~ thrownt overboard. lt was said htbitAtr..Gibbs ought to be belIeved, bec,use lie asbrought forward wlith ?eluctance to give, evidence against hi1msll Every man so circumstanced mvut come forwarcq withl rebUctnce Mr G}ibbs stood forwvard to acknowledge his own bnsenC.'i but if he meant to atoDe for it by wlling the truth, lie,took the m%st extraor- Lliary means to effect at object, for never was evidence cofte in,- tradictory, inconsistent, and incredible. He woul4 not say iib7 thing of thebeginning of the transactions. He admitted thatMi. 63tii- stead had been duped-not by the superior cunning of Mlr. Gitt'br acting on the mere, simplicitv of -r. Ostead-nuthe war. tln' dupe, like many others, of Mis own avarice. Could se -have bea contented - with lawful Interest, in all probability be would7have his fortune still in his possession. It-had been assumed, thajust at the time of the bankruptcy, Mr. Grimstt ad vaso whoUyupaTaiptet with rbedaner in whichhis property stood. Then of eours caine npon hm liL-e athderbolt. 't was .inevidence thatM.Poter first explained the danger to MIr. Grimmtead, nnd convinced himho far he bad been practised upon by the fraud chili. Gibbs. Theirc what w/as the result of the interviewv between themn ? One would ha7e expected that all confidence would have rea.sed-tbat Mr. Grimstead would have withdrawn all his papers fron the possession of Mtr. Gibbs-: instead of which, natters remained exactly as they were befbre. But-he corrected himself-not exactly as they Were before, foe Mlr. Grimstead aigned a poDwer of attorney, agreeably to the request of hlr. Gibbs, as it w.as represented to Mir. Grime stead by Air. Porter, andaby the tenour of a letter which AM. Por- ter bore from llMr. Gibbs, and whicb Mr. Grimstead'confesses that he put intb the fire. The LorD CHAN CELLOR asked if there was any evidence thew Ilr. 6Grimstead was aware of his debt having been in any manner caled in question at the time Mr. Porter waited upon him at Ca- lais- and then, was he aware of the fraud which had been practised upon him ? Undoubtedly there uras trouble-and suspicion enough wvhici might be placed in the way of proving this debt but if Mr. Grimstend at.that time was wholly uninformed, either of the fraudi of AIr. Gibbs or of the opposition of the other creditots,he badi nv tzuse of alarn or -suspition, because the quaiter's payment of his annuities lhad lately been naude, anud he could not expect that he was to sustain any great loss from the bankruptcy. Mr. Hlostei admitted that there was no such. evidence; but he inferred ITom the contradictions in the examinations,- and the'diffcr- ence between his aiseverstions now andbefore the Vice-Chantellorr thai Mfr. Grinstead's representation of this part of the case was not such as would satisfy the Court. Irn the want of directprof, they mnust refer to circumstances and coniecture. Mlr. Gibbs adnirtted that the concerns were carried.on in tfie same way as in other houses. There was a letter book, the contents of which were either burnt or lost-he did not care which; they xwere Ilot forthcomin~. It-was re. mnarkable that MIr. Grimstead entertained the same viev of the iu. convenience of preserving the memorials of the correspondence: for on one occasion,when lordStrathmore was present,andremonstrated against the folly of it, Mr. Grimstend was throving letters by whole. sale into the fire. he did the sme with the letter which lr. Por- ter rook overwith hsim.Tbelettersmust havernade eitherfororagainst him. They would have assisted in proving that ha was either the vir. tim or the participator in the raud which attached to those transactions. Would any sensible man have destroyed the testimony of that fraud of whicb'Ar. Grimstead now avowed himself to have become the dupe? Would Mr. Porter, who vuas proved, notwithstand- ing the declration of the petition that Mr. rdnstead saw him at Calais for the first dine, to bave been the profeeional agent of Mr. GrimSteal, have suffered him to destroy a document so valuable to his case? But then Air. PoLter brought home a power of attorney enabling IUr. ibbs to reeeive the produce of his annuities. NVar that a probable conscquence of his having for the fuist time detected the fraud of Mr. Gibbs ? The Court must look to other circum- stances to explain such extraordinary and inconsistent propositions. Therewas a remarkahle coincidence and resemblance bet?ween the coiduct of Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Grimstead throughout. Much de. clamation had ben advanced upon principles of jnsuteigeeerally, to whicr he did not mean to direct any observations, Je was not there as counsel for the Vi-eeChancellor. It would be pre-sumption in him to offir so to do. But certainly not only had his flonour done.jastice, but be had taken the most mercihll couse for Mr. Grimstead. Alr. Mlontague thought the caso hardly dealt with both befuoe the Vicea.hatcelor arid the Comnmiationees. He even went so far ai to express a hope that the Lord Chancellor would-call the Commissioners'before him to anuswer for their conduct. Be (MZr. Home) would not bay how tar it might be proper or improper for the Court to exercise that power; but never was there a case In which more feeble reaasons were advanced on such an applicaton. As. to the Vice-Chantllor; he was surprised to hear the comiplaint of no counsel having been heard. The facts were these- r. Hart opened the case in along spewh, which was heard patiently to the end. He need notsay thath lr. Haxt went fuliy into the case-he- described and expatiated upon th merts and docuentsein it. A mnost respectable accounrant was present, and- both the Court and, counsel repeatedly obtained expl.ananon from him. T1he greater part of the day was spent in tne lhearig. It was the evening of the Christmas vacation. The evidence had heen handedi up to hiso- nour, and it was agresd on all hands that it would be deslrablefor his Honoar to look through ii, and pronounce upon theprayer of the petition at the neat sittings. The case was gaing men. tioted on the 16th of January. Hie believed that on that -day no counsel expressed a wish to be heard. His Honour then decided at once thbat the question must be tried at law. To this Ihere wasrIn objection sttbe time. All that occurred was the wish. expreped by 31Mr.Monrague that hisRonoar would iead through the evie,ence: The Courtacquiesced. It was in the discretion of conn- sel to mlake surb requests: but unless the lips of judges were to be padlocked they would very naturally -conounce their opinion of a. case after taving at the desire of the petitioner orplaintifis examine& theevidence.- ut was-it ntreinarsbletutevery Courthaud con- curred in thesameopinion ofthis petitioner's case? Asto thepro- reedingaupon the trial, he could not see the force of the objections. mir. (trin-stead consented to try the quesdon at law. *Fhy did he not bring his appeal, instead of going to trial P As to tue imuniau tions of IJ. Diontague against the course ad6pted by the cosel for the assignees, they were perfectly futile. If they had not cha=ei the title of the defendants in the acuon, they must have been imme- diately put out of court. Upon consideration they tbund, too, that uholdd they call- Mr. Gibbs, he might turn round and admit the debt7 and then the trial would have been a imockery. They tberefore ibitmUed ag jrer to exclude tthe examinations from the evidence, leaving Air. Grimstead to call Mr. Gibbs, if he thought proper. Theother'restraints which they proposed for theissue were justifiable upon the same general principle-that of best accommodating the interestsof justice. and fUily satisfying the conscienceof this Ufure. AMr.Grimstead bad at least acquiesced eo far, that he never male any appeal against the alleged irregularity of the proceedings, which was remnarkable, if the argument now advanced werse a good ene-ethat all those proceedings were so irregular in point of practice, and so im. proper as to the progress and conduct of them, that they ought to go for nothing. He, trusted thu the Court would not entertain that opinion, but that it would consent to that which was proposed ii the answer-that the debt ot'Ar. (Grimste.rd ought not to he proved. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that from his' preset apprebeni. sion of the case, speaking without prejudice to the arguments and evidence yet to be produced, neither in the judgment of the Vice. Chancellor, nor in that of Sir Rohr- allas, did it appear to bhim that the law and circumstances of usury had been stated -with sut' iient learness. He could-not any bat e1Thct might be produced by the remining argumen't';' hut he could not conceive it possible to decide thisa easerithonbe aid of a new trial. There wmadefi. ieney in the instructitrius with which the jury had been charged as to the particular pages of the pass-book, which, in a caseof this com- plicated nature,- wa mest unsatisfacetory. He had before put the eatse ofrniities which Gibbs m%ght be supposed to have undetaken to effbct for Mt. Grimsteadt and they were not eected. There uan en entry fbr,.terest merely, which was calculated at lawfiltet * theremws sqothei entry for commission on the anhltie;-tere were entrit#of produce in the aa4ibook, whi6a were ediee ts in- teret in 31 mbbs'aleder. The cons derations arising froipthis had been not * little priudiced by he evidence of Mr. 4intesd himelfi? t3W, i sendig It soaJury, the pardties, whedhsttdeb or damage, usuious lcain or anuity, ahould h4ve bet pa The iv -hOld he b a to 5 f *1 tt bbo,k 'werj usurios, oz if pprt wure utSa and -part auy mi 'tcrest; apd so to specify at what time be-annuity munSaeSitr ere 'cdnv?;Wmeie1 ti. It ight bEaques' if corttitittieg ina lQtneuflt should notbewvitr wrioacqics5't of. si4 bit t~t Xiult poit; geFtiisr4 e&birgeof i~sty th ei wjaol .t,4 lhen there 'ere othier parts which charged simple in. mnly,. T E SLVE was prOceeding to argue tbat I bthercoullp!ove thhabeliaved they cOudl do.-ibat iGr. lrm tstodwAs aware the 2h Oftw~iner, t wZach t amountcmnitfenc6d, ataas ei ering upon contr eet fo? thehe lanof hts tmoney at 10 t.,ten t wold akendifbrenowiich offlieitnes(in-the zoxe thesitleoafproduced whath-thf h irtiresat. Their ien wata to shov that ursury taintesi every transaction in the LORnD CHANCELLOI. would- not consent that Air. Treslove c0111e1ce an argument fromi which his Lordsbip expected mablIe assistance and inlfo wAtio..4ie. said it with sincerity- autwhenhecould n(taYtohearhimout. But hepmusteday g from the notes of the Ch1ief Justice, that it conld not be. Ut from thle CVlIa that usury tainted any one of the tran. taRsLoVE hoped that his Lordship wvould inquire of Chief aJlas in what way that pmart of the case ws submitted to ecauts5e-byn the short-hand witer's notes there had been LAW REPWRT. COURT OF HANCERY, TUESDAY, JAN. 27. SOLICITORS. - , .