Court Of Exchequer, Tuesd...
The CHiEF BAlRoN sat thigia at Mn; Pris. After several undefended causes had. been dls'paseaof, the jury were awomn to eaaa~ ~ange r th foloingcase.inwhwh judmmeit hiadbeen given against the defendant. GILTLINGUAM1 V. M'YERS.. Mr. TAmfTOW,said, th-at the plAintif in this cause, MfaryOii. lingarn wa. ~ iai~ ldy,of the' age of 87, and tbe defendiant wasan attorney of considem.blQpractfce- In.the yearlR&4,,tfiid6 fendant prevailed uponthe.P n0iYAolsefl out 1~I~si~l South Sea Stock for his accomm~oda*!on;; be giving a W li1iat ho wo,dd replace the'stock on demand, and fni te nftritimey~h dividendsaon the.st6k` as thevsa&,rue&iothepntfA had been miade uponthdebdntrdactetki ay86 with which he hCAad ed tocomply,.- A~claidi oquenee been brougbt, judgm~ent. haa beeu glv~* sgiain't the7defez citid: the jugy were now call~dl upoir,to-as'40'a .fli darn es'*ii the plainti Fhad-tustained biy. the tlefendna eeb eeir ufta which he had entereA.. The6 deorathdaucdnK ao the recordi and ;it.wudtiefoen!'b ec rytpv' the '0lue of S~hSaSol n*~ t:i h rsn time; :fdr, on h uhrt fwOe css~huei-wi1 *ere to. be faund ntebos h litf-ws nite t t.:ke the pribcc~offs6la h iewe h ib oa place It -was maadq,o a'h ie6 rg.~U ol & a e - etgl tle sk brk4tr, W116, i0 heft;eV, vdst lpoge stthe ire sent vdue.of tte quantityof stock which thedefendanthbdiorrowed of the plaintiff; waa141L5X,. 6d., and4bltkr the dividends-which had aceraseaupot2 the stocksince 1814 tolhe presenttime,iybuldambunt to 421.t'iY. i.; making z.total-'f 1831, .12'&7d.,- for wliich -:imotunf he trusted the jury would give a verdict.' John larrison. a stock-broker, proved, that according to the present mnar.et price of Old Ssath Sea Stock, the stock which the plaintiff lent to the defendant would be;rworth 1'4111: 5s. 6d.; and that te. davidends payable upon the same, from the 10th of October, i 1814i to the 5th of April last, amounted to 421. 6s. Id. This was the plaintiff's cse. -The Defendant then proceeded toaddressthejuryonhisowTabebrldf He apologlied for addressing them himself, which had bsenrandered necessary because tbelearsedgentlemen whom he had formerly em. ployedrefased ntow to take fees from him becausehe was aprofessional man, and he wag determined not to avail himself of their assistance unless he paid for it. The task wbich he had uttdertaken vwould require nmuch firmness on hig part, and much attention on the part of the,jiury. The question whicit they would have to tonsider was one with respect to which they should not be guided by the opinion of any man whatever. No Judge had a right to dictate to their con- sciences on the subject. He had a right to complain that Mr. Taunton had not correctly stated the history of the case. The learned gentleman hadl gratuitously and unfoundedly stated that the plaintiff had been induced to sell out the -stock in question for his accommodation. That was not the case. He had derived ao benefit from the transaction; he had merely become the secarity for an- other person, as he wiould prove to the satisfaction of the jury. The CHIEF BARiON said that he coald not permit the de- fendant to give evidence as to the purpose for which the money was raised. All that the jury were called upon to dif on the present oc- casion was to assess the damages. The Defendant said that he would rest satisfied with having denied the statement of the learned Counsel, which he (MIr. Taun- ton) himself knew to be notoriously wtrong. After stating that the proceedings in the cause had been, going on for the last eight years, the defendant proceeded to say that he would caU evidence to prove that the plinttff~was indabte tso him in a larger surm than that wthich she claimned. The CHCEF BAitOm observed, that he could not allowt such evi. dence to be received. The action had been tried ome time ago, and thejury then gave the defendant the benefit of the set-off which he now seemed to be desirous of establishinEt. The Court, however, after mature deliberation, set aside the finding of the jury, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. The Defendant admitted that the Court had given judgment for the plaintiff, but they had marked their sense of her case by re- fusing her costs, as the Judges of Venice had decreed to Sltylock "the pound of flesh," but not an atom more. After continuing for a considerable timelonger to lament " in goodeetteras" the " law'2 delay," and its " glorious uncertainty," which he appeared to feel as acutely as persons not in the profession usually do, he concluded by entreating the jury to give the plaintiff no more than a shilhng damages. The Defendant then calledl two witnesses, to whom he put ques- tions, from the answers to which he evidently expected to be able to establish k set-off to the plaintiff's claim. The Chief Baron, how- ever, uniformly prevented the witnesses from replying to the ques- tions, and several times expressed his surprise that the plaintiff should persist in wasting the time of the jury and the Court by such an irregular course of proceeding. At the request of the defendant, his I,srdship took a note of some oF the 9uestions. John MIootham the nephew of the p]atntiff was the next witness. He stated that he 1iad repeatedly heard his mother say, that the de- fendant had paid her various sums of money on account of the bond, and that she feared there was a considerable balance due from her to the defendant. She also said that shc had so'd out her stock for the benefit of the witness. Crosa-examined.-He is on good terms with his atsnt at present he had not seen her for the last'two veats. Within that time hc bad been to the defendant's house very frequently. He could not state how often. The defendant had lent the witness money, and was his creditor at present for some tens of pounds. Mfr. TA LNTOS shortly replied. He expressed his regret, that a case which should not have occupied theattention of the jury for more than a quarter of an hour, had now been, by the imDroper conduct of the defendant, protracted for upwards of three hours. The defendant had thought proper to accuse him of having gratuitously asserted that the plaintifF had sold out her stock for the defendant's accommodation. He was, however, borne out in that s,tatement by the terms of the bond itself, In which it was recited that the transac_ tioni tookplace at the request of the defendant. The CHIEF BARON observed, that the defendant had brought forward no evidence which ought to prevent the jury from giving the plaintiff damages to the full amount claimed. If the defendant could prove a set-off, that circumstance might benefit him hereafter. The Jury immediatelv found for the plaintiff-Damages 1831. 12s. 7d. FLAHERTY v. SHARLAND. In the course of the day it was istihnated to the Court, that the de. fendantin this cause, (the facts of which were given in The Times of the 3d inst.) had consented to pay 3001. damages, thereby ab- solving the Court from further interference. COURT OF EXCHV.OUgR. Tffv.w,1 I,.,.R