The Sun. — 1827-08-13 (London, England)

FENTON, GENT. V. THURTELE, ESQ.  Mr. SIDNEY TAYLOR said, this action had been brought by Mr. Francis Tarrant Fenton, a solicitor, residing in London, against Thomas Thurtell, Esq., an Alderman of this city, to recover 4001., the amount of the costs incurred by him in the defence of John Thurtell, the son of the defendant. There was a count for work and labour, and the usual money counts.  Mr. Sergeant STORKES said this action was brought to recover from the father of that extraordinary and ill-fated young man, John Thurtell, the amount of the plaintiff's bill of costs, incurred in defending the son ; and whether it was wise in the defendant to resist the claim—or whether it would not have been more considerate that he should not have compelled the plaintiff to bring again before the public facts which he should have conceived the defendant would have been anxious to have buried in oblivion, the issue of the trial would show. It would be proved, that when John Thurtell was charged with the murder of which he was afterwards convicted, the present defendant and two of his friends entered into some negociation with Mr. Jay, a solicitor at Norwich, for the purpose of employing a London attorney. It could not be imagined that a father would be dead to the feelings of a parent, and stand aloof on such an occasion. Mr. Jay proceeded to London, in consequence of an arrangement with the defendant and his two friends, and the plaintiff was employed. The two gentlemen he alluded to were Mr. Unthanke, an attorney of Norwich, and Mr. Alderman Bolingbroke ; and at a meeting with Mr. Jay, they said that 10!. were quite sufficient to pay for John Thurtell's defence. How Mr. Unthanke, an attorney, could think so, was surprising. Mr. Fenton was no party to that conversation, and it was quite preposterous and absurd to say that a case of that description could be defended for so small a sum as 10/.; they might as well have mentioned the smallest coin in the realm. When Mr. Fenton was first applied to, nothing was said to him by Mr. Jay, that the defendant would not be pledged to pay more than 10/., and the plaintiff immediately proceeded in preparing the defence of John Thurtell. Some of the Magistrates of Hertford having refused Mr. Fenton admission to the gaol, to see his client, he found it necessary to apply to the King's Bench for a mandamus, as he could be of no service N the unhappy prisoner unless he had a personal communication with him. The Court of King's Bench granted the mandamus, and the expence of the application formed part of the claim which the plaintiff sought to recover by this action. The newspapers at that time published expartc statements, not calculated to create the best effects as regarded the prisoner; and Mr. Fenton, as the legal guardian of his client's interests, applied to the Court of King's Bench for criminal informations against the proprietors and publishers of several papers. The costs of these proceedings were very large; but Mr. Fenton asked for no more than the bare expences he had been put LO, and required nothing for his time and professional services. He had performed his work faithfully, and the charges were fair professional charges. Upon an application being made to the defendant for payment of the plaintiff's bill, he said that he had not employed the plaintiff about the mandamus or the criminal informations. Part of the 400/. the plaintiff admitted to have received from different sources, and the Jury, after hearing the evidence, would say what further sum he was entitled to.  Mr. John Muuday--I am a solicitor of Norwich; the plaintiff was my agent in London; I tooka copy of the plaintiff's bill to the defendant, and also a letter from the plaintiff, in June, 1825; the letter produced is a copy. If I did not read the letter, I acquainted the defendant with the substance ; I believe the Alderman read the letter, or I read it to him ; it was dated June 23, 1825. Cross-examined by Mr.