Talk:Charles Abbott, 1st Baron Tenterden

message: Recently the file :File:Charles Abbott, 1st Baron Tenterden by John Hollins.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 04:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New file [[:File:Charles Abbott, 1st Baron Tenterden by John Hollins.jpg]] 

message: Final words were " ‘Gentlemen of the Jury, you are discharged’"  according to ODNB Victuallers (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally every other source I've seen disagrees with that, which is odd. However, those sources all agree my version, while only Polson says differently. Ironholds (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Final words

message: This contemporary account seems to say it contained a requirement for written evidence of commercial fraud. Note there is a long argument near the end over what the statute means, as the article says happened. Some more info on this could help the article.
“ “That eminent old lawyer, Lord Tenterden, had been, many long years ago, at the pains to provide a statutory immunity for people like Downey and Grabble. Mr. Brown, as an Englishman, ought to have known the laws of his country—it is presumed that every man has all the written and the unwritten, the common, the civil, and the criminal codes engraven on the tablets of his memory—but Mr. Brown did not know it was requisite for his safety that the many representations of the English firm should be written down in unblushing ink. Even if he had known so much as was requisite for his security, he might have relied upon the mistaken supposition that Downey and Grabble were truthful men.
In the hope that this case had features which took it from under the mischievous ægis of Lord Tenterden, in reliance upon a notion that Downey and Grabble would not dare to allow the cause to reach a public trial, and also prepared to risk something in the interest of the mercantile community, Mr. Brown brought his action against these “respectable” men. It cost him something, did this resolution. He had to employ first-rate counsel, whose fees were not small. The cause was defended. Downey and Co. knew that this was but one of a series of claims, which, under the like circumstances, might arise against them. At the trial all the facts I have mentioned were clearly established. The learned counsel who led the plaintiff’s case denounced, in terms of just severity, the conduct of the defendants. The judge, the jury, and the spectators would have been “glad to see financial equity enforced against the wrong-doers. At the conclusion of the evidence Mr. Brown was able to offer, the counsel for the defendants argued that he had no case to answer. He took his stand upon the Act of Parliament. He did not attempt to deny the merits of the plaintiff’s case. He could not answer the damnatory facts. Upon the dry technical question, whether or not Messrs. Downey and Grabble were shielded by the obnoxious statute, there was a long argument, which ended in the judge’s expressing an opinion that he was afraid they were; and the plaintiff was nonsuited.”
Excerpt From
Secret Service; or, Recollections of a City Detective
Andrew Forrester
This material may be protected by copyright. 2601:647:5800:7D80:9151:123F:6C81:13CD (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: What bill passed in 1831?