Court Of King's Bench, We...
This was a' action brought bv the plaintiff to reciver of the de- fendant a sum of money which he. had intrusted to his carc to be laid out in the purchase of annuities well and properly secured, and which the plaintiff had lost in conseqtnence of the negligence of which the defendant had been guilty. On the part of the plaintiff, it was proved at the trial that at the time when the defendant re. commended him to lend his money to Dr. Locke on the security of the living of Hillgay, estimated at the yearly value of 1,5001., there were judgments docketted against him to the amount of 39,0001., and annuities enrolled against him to the amount of 1,2891., and that l)r. Locke was considered in the neighbourhood in which he lived a man in very embarrassed circumstances. On the part of the defendant, it was contended, first, that the plaintiff had employed his own attorney to draw up the conveyances by which Dr. Locke secured to the plaintiff the payment of his an- nuity; and secondly, that if Dr. Locke had not been deprived of his living of Hill gay, in contsequence of crtain sinioniacal proceed- ings in which he hadl been engaged, the plaintiff would still have had good security for his money. The jury, however, were of opinion that there was no ground for either defence, and accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff-damnages 8921. 1Os. The ATToRtsEY.GE2;EIAL nowmoved for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted on the following grounds- first, that the defendant had ascertainre since the trial, by applica- tion to the different attornies who had entered up the judgments against Dr. Locke, that those judgments had been satisfied to the amount of 33,000., though no satisfaction had been entered on the roll previously to this transaction wit Air. Greatham in 1818; and secondly, that he had obtainedl evidence, that of the annuities which Dr. Locke had granted to the amount of 1,2891., 5081. had heen paid off previously to the same time. Nowv, he contended, that if evidence of thxese facts had L?een submittefd to the jury, they would have come to a different conclusion from that to which they had ar- rived; for the annuities would not then have amounted to mucbmore than 7001., and the judgment debts would have been reduced froin 39,0001. to 6,0001. in nominal amount,and to 3,0001. in real amount, the judgments being always entered iup for double the suni really due. He had likewise another reason, on which he moved for a new trial. The defendant had subpcenaed the a solicitor of the name of Wilmot Parker, who had been the confi- dential friend and adviser of Dr. Iocke, trom whom he had ex- pected to obtain at the trial a full disclosure of the amount of Dr. Icke's various property. On the evening before the trial, the de. fendant received a letter from Mr. Parker's son, stating that his fa- ther hadl suddenly died; and he had therefore been unable to avail himself of the information which Air. Parker could have supplied. The LORD CHIEF. JUSTICE.-Of what value could that nt'or- mation have been to you, when,in addition to all the evidence which the plaintiff produced regarding the judgments and the annuities, it was also in evidence that writ arter writ had been issued against Dr. Locke, and that a very considerable incumbrance rested an his living of Hillgay? The ATTOILYEV-GENERAL wished to explain the circumstances respecting the living of Hillgay. Dr. Locke had made a secret con- tract with a clergyman of the name of Craddock, to vacate the liv- ing of Hiligay in his favour. He did so vacate it; but le after- wards resumed possession of it in 1817, in consequence of Dr. Craddock being unable to fulfil his part of the contract, and conti- nued inpossession of it at the period that the transaction took place between him and the present plaintiff? He atterwards agreed to vacate it ia&favour of a Mr. Lens, when the Bishop of Norwich, having heard of the former contract with Dr. Craddock, and 5US. peeting a similar contract with AMr. Lens, refusetl to present the latter gentleman, obtained a writ of qlearc irnpedit, and deprived Dr. Locke hy that mneans of the living, which he had assigned to the plaintiff ?s security for his annuity. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that this very living was also mortgaged fbr a considerable sum-a circumstance which the detendant might have learned had he matle the 'requisite inquirv. It was only charitable to suppose that he had made no inquiry at all; for if be hat( made any, he would have found that in 1817 Dr. Craddock was in possession of the living of Illigay, then Dr. Locke1and then lr.Lens. Were not such circumstances calculated to excite suspicion ? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that the transaction with Mr. Lens was subsequent to the granting of this annuitv. The LotD CHIEF JUsTrcg.-But you know no more now titan you night have known, Mlr. Attorney, with due diligence, be- fore the trial. The ATTORICZY-GENERAL.--We expected to prove the points which I bave mentioned by the evidence of Mr. Parker, Dr. Locke's solicitor. The LoRaD CuiEr JusTicE.-Does.your afiidavit state that Ilfr. Parker could have proved Dr. Loie to have been iin goo&d'r- cumstances, er only that he could pros e Dr. Locke's circumstances? The ATTORNEF-GEnEtAL.-Only the last point. The LORD CHrEF JusTIcE.-Thezr tlhe evidence which he would have given, in oU probability, would only have coincidtd with the evidence which we alreadv Itave. Besides, your cient, if he had done his duty to Mr. Greatham, would have found out at th e time-what he appears only to have recently discovered-that though these j udgments were up on the roll, the greater part of them ha een s1atisfied. Mlr. Justice BAYI.EY..Was 1r. Parker's name in the brief of The ATTO1?NEY-GEWERAL looked at his brief, and replied in the afrmative. b r. Justice BAYRLEY.-What was he to prove according to the The ATTortiEY.GENERAL.-To prove that the living of Hill- gay was in possession of Dr. Locke at the time when he granted this alnnuity, and that he lost it subsequenitlv by the proceedings consequent on the issuing out of the 7uarc irnprdif. The LORD CHIEF JUSTIcE.--That is a very different thing from proving the general state of Dr. Locke's affaims Alr. Parker, it appears, is nowv dead, and, under such circumstances, he must be a bo d man who can now come betbre the Court and swear that ,lr. Parker could have proved the general state of Dr. Locke's aftairs. It is evident that it was not intended at the time of the trial to call bim for any such purpose. The ATTORnEY-GENERAL.-The only way in which I can pretend to put this case to your lordships is, that the jury might not have come to the conclusion they did if they had an opportu- nity of weighing the circumstances I have mentioned regarding the amount of the judgments and annuities. The LonD CHIEF JUSTICE.-It Was your client's fault that the jury had not that opportunity, a7ed tberefore he ought not to seek to benefit by it. T'he L,ORD CHIEF JUSTICE consulted for a minute with his learned brothers,and then said that the Court could not, consistently w. ith the rules w hich it had laid down for new trials, grant the rule which had been moved for by Ar. Attomey. IIENILY GtATTAw, ESQ. Dlr. DENDi tN moved for a rule to show cause why a cri- minal information shoould not be filed against Henry Grattan, Esq., for a libel which had been published in the Mforning Chronicle some time ago, reRflecting on the character of a% Irish gentleman, named Davis, about whese conduct an inquiry was then going for- ward in the tlouse of Commons. In July last, he had obtained a similar rule against the proprietor and publisher of the Merniaia Clronicle. The persons connected with that paper had since given to Ar. Davis all the informnation in their power; and the rule against them would therefore not be pressed. They had informed r. Davis that they had received the paper which contained the libel fron II. Grattan, Bsq. Upon their giving up this paper to Iltr. Davis, he had sought for and obtained evidence as to lIr. Grattan's hand-vriting. Ile had an affidavit to prove that tbis paper wBa in Mr. Grattan's hand-writing, regtlarly sworn before a Judge of the Court of Kine's Bench in Ireland. Ile had like- wise an affilavit from M\r. Davis, the gentleman reflected upon a.s having grossly violated his duty as a Orand Juror in passing be- tweel! tte Sheriff of Dnmblin and the partv to an indictment, fully denying every part of the charge which had been mnadle against him. he l,ORD CUIEF JUSTICE.-" Take arule." COURT OF KING'S BENCH, IVESTMUNSTER MIAY 10. a.lRK.TRIXr V. Wul--t