Page images


Monday, Nov. 25th.

SHORT, Demandant; Pratt and others, Tenants.

pers in bis

Where a charge This was a proceeding in the nature of a writ of rights was made by affidavit, against an at

Mr. Serjeant Pell applied for a rule, calling on two torney of the Court, amount- attornies of this Court to shew cause why they should not dictable offence, give the demandant's present attorney the names of the the Court refused to call

persons liable to pay the bill of costs delivered by them, upon him sum- and refund, or account for certain sums of money re-Inarily to answer the affida. ceived by them on account of the demandant; and also vit, but left the deliver over certain deeds and papers belonging to him. party to prosecụte ; but they to his present attorney, and answer the matters of the granted a rule calling on him following affidavit, which stated in substance that the to deliver over deeds and pa

demandant was a private in the militia, and had only his hands to the

pay to subsist on : that he had been advised, and bethen attorney lieved, that he was entitled to a considerable estate in of the complaining party. the county of Stafford : that he bad been recommended

by some of his relations to consult two attornies of this Court, who accordingly applied to Mr. Bell, as being a person most conversant with cases of controverted titles, and who advised the demandant to bring a writ of right. That he had accordingly obtained from his relatives, friends, and other persons, at different times, soms amounting to 9001. which had been paid over to the attornies, on a strong assurance by them that the demandant must ultimately succeed. That several persons had been induced to advance money through their interference, and on their stating that they should receive a dividend from the property when recovered; to some of whom the attornies administered oaths, enjoining them to secrecy. That they caused sixty-one writs of right to be sued out and served on the several tenants, and then delivered their bill of costs to the demandant, amounting to 1,3001., giving credit for the 900l. received, but


Demandant ;


without stating from whom they had received it, or at what periods; and that they then refused to carry on the proceedings, unless a further considerable sum was advanced; when the demandant was advised to employ another attorney, which he had accordingly done.-Under these circumstances the learned Serjeant submitted, that the parties were answerable for such gross misconduct, as attornies of the Court; and that they were, in fact, liable to be struck off the roll; or, at all events, to answer the matters of the affidavit.

Lord Chief Justice DALLAS -The Court will not enquire, on an application of this nature, whether the attornies against whom it is made, have been guilty of barratry, champerty, or maintenance, or either of them, or whether the charge amounts to a conspiracy, for which they might have been indicted. At all events, the impatation cast on them is of a highly criminal nature; and if it can be substantiated, calls for condign punishınent. The term champerty seems to be most applicable to the offence with which they are charged, as that is defined to be a bargain with the plaintiff or defendant in any suit to have part of the land, debt, or other thing sued for, if the party that undertakes it prevails therein, and for which the party offending is liable to punishment by fine and imprisonment.--However, I am of opinion, that under the circumstances, the Court may modify the rule, by confining it to the production of the papers and accounts to the plaintiff's present attorney ; but it would be too much to call on his former attornies to answer the affidavit on a summary application of this description; and more particularly so, as it cannot be answered within the Term, and as the demandant has another remedy by proceeding by indictment.

Mr. Justice PARK.-This is a most serious charge ;


and it is enacted by the statute 12 Geo. 1, c. 29, s. 4, that if SHORT, any person, who has been convicted of common barratry, Demandant : &c. shall practise as an attorney, solicitor, or agent in any

Tenant, suit, the Court, upon complaint, shall examiné it in a

summary way; and if proved, shall direct the offender to
be transported for seven years; but the party must first
proceed by information. I therefore concur with my
Lord Chief Justice, that we cannot grant this application
in the terms as prayed for.

Mr. Justice BURROUGA,- If the attornies have administered baths, enjoining parties to secrecy, as stated in the affidavit, it is a proceeding of a highly culpable nature; but it would be too much to require them to answer it on a motion of this nature; as, if they did not answer in a full and satisfactory manner, they might render themselves liable to an indictment; and it would be too much for the Court to require them to criminate themselves.

On Mr. Serjeant Pell's stating that the demandant's time to count would expire on the last day of the Term, the Court granted a rule to shew cause why it should not be enlarged until the next; as well as a rule, calling on the demandant's late attornies to shew cause why the deeds, papers, and accounts should not be delivered over to his present attorney.

[ocr errors][merged small]


Dillon and another v. RIMMER.


Nov. 25th. This was an action of ussumpsit on a bill of exchange, Where a dedated the 1st December, 1821, for 531, Os. 6d. drawn by one indebted to the Fell on, and accepted by the defendant, and indorsed by plaintiffs on a Fell to the plaintiffs. The first count of the declaration change, whi

• was dishonour was founded on the bill, to which was added the common ed, gave anmoney counts. The defendant pleaded the general issue. Other bill at a

; At the trial of the cause before Lord Chief Justice and also a war

rant of attorney Dallas, at Guildhall, at the adjourned. Sittings after the to confess last Term, it was proved, that when the bill became due ment, in case

the second bill it was disbonogred, That on the defendant being should not be

paid when due, threatened with an action at the suit of the plaintiffs, he and agreed to called on them, when it was agreed that he should give penses of exea new bill for the amount of the first, adding the interest: cuting the warand expenses of noting; and that he should also execute ney; and the

second bill was ą warrant of attorney with a defeazance to secure the duly honoured,

but those exdue payment of the new bill for the sum of 531. 178.,

were not dated the 26th December, drawn by Fell on, and accepted paid, and the

first bill was reby the defendant; and that judgment should be entered tained by the up and execution issue for the amount of such bill, Held, that they together with all costs, in case that bill should be dis, could not sue

the defendant honoured; and it was also agreed that the defendant on such origishould pay the costs of preparing and executing the war- the jury having rant of attorney. That the new bill was given, and the found a general

verdict for warrant of attorney executed, the expenses of which them in an acamounted to 2l. 12s. 6d., which the defendant had refused to the amount of to pay. That the first bill was left in the possession of such expenses, the plaintiffs' attorney, and on which the present action dered it to be

entered on the was brought. For the defendant it was proved that the common money renewed bill mentioned in the defeazance, was paid when view to deprive it became due. The jury, however, found a general ver

the plaintiffs of

their costs, undict for the plaintiffs, for 21. 12s. 6d.

der the London

Court of Requests Act ;--the sum claimed as the expenses of executing the warraut of attorney being under 51.





Mr. Serjeant Vaughan, on a former day in this Term, (Nov. 11th), obtained a rule calling on the plaintiffs to shew cause why a suggestion should not be entered on the roll in this cause, on an affidavit, that the defendant at the time of the commencement of the action, was resident in the city of London, and subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Requests of that city; and that the defendant was serviceable in that Court.

On Mr. Serjeant Taddy being about to shew cause, the Court suggested the propriety of suspending the rule, and that another should be first obtained, calling on the plaintiffs to shew cause why the verdict found for them should not be entered upon such one of the common counts in the declaration (excluding that on the bill), as the Court should direct; which having been accordingly done, viz. on the 21st Nov. Mr. Serjeant Vaughan submitted, that as the payment of the second bill deprived the plaintiffs of their right to sue on the first; and as the particulars of their demand in this action were confined to the damages sought to be recovered on that bill, they could have no right to sue on it, and consequently that there was no count in the declaration applicable to the sum of 21. 12s. 6d. found by the jury, as the expenses of preparing the warrant of attorney; or that, at all events, the defendant was entitled to a suggestion under the statute 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 104,- 8. 12 (a).

(a) By which it is enacted, that " if any action or suit shall be com. menced in any other Court than the London Court of Requests, for any debt not exceeding the sum of five pounds, and recoverable by virtue of the former acts, or of that act, in the said Court of Requests, the plaintiff or plaintiffs in such action or suit, shall not, by reason of a verdict for him, her, or them, or otherwise, have or be entitled to any costs whatsoever; and if the verdict shall be given for the defendant or defendants in such action or suit, and the Judge or Judges before whom the same shall be tried or heard, shall think fit to certify that such debt ought to have been recovered in the said Court of Requests, then such defendant or defendants shall have double costs, and shall have such remedy for recovering the same, as any defendant or defendants may have for his, her, or their costs, in any cascs by law."

« PreviousContinue »