Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
This day the sittings for London were resumed before the LORD CHnEF JusTIcEand common juries. PltICE V. BVLLEN. This was an action against an attorney, to recover a compensation for damages sustained by the plaintiff, in consequence of the negli. gence of thedefendan: in conducting the defence of a cause. The plaintifF's case was conducted, by Mr. GOuiRxis and Mr. PLATT; the defendant's, by Mlr. SCARLETT and Mr. EvAws. It appeared on the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff that he had been a baker. residing at louthend, and that the defend- aut was an atturney exercising his profession in that place. While a minor, he married and rented a house of a person samed Hay, in that town. Alr. Hay brought an action against him for a year's rent, which he employed Mr. Bullen to defend, on the ground of in- fancy. On Friday. Ist of March, the cause stood for trial at Guild. hall, but then was No. 201 in the list, and at a considerable distance from the head of his Lordbhip's paper. Inconsequence, however, of one of the accidents of Ari;i Prites, the preceding causes went off with great rapidity, and it becamne probable that the case of " Hay v. Price" would come on upon the following day. Under this impression, illr. Spurr, of the firm of Kearsey and Spuer, the agents of Mlr. Bullen, despatched a letter to that gentleman appris. ing him ofthe circumstance, and requesting him to hasten to town with his witnesses. On the Saturday, however, he did not arrive, al5d lr. Spurr, expecting the case to be called on, madean applica. tion to postpone the triial il londay, which was granted on pay_ ment of the costs'of the day which were taxed at 131. MOs. hlr. Spurr apprised Al r.Bullen of tLe circumstances by post,and he came to town, bringing with him AlaryCates, a servant of the defendant. and Peter Price, his elder brother, as witnesses. Re desaltched Peter Price to Rochcester, to procLre a copy of the baptismal register of the defendant, but it did not arrive in uime: and he did not take the ser- vant into court. The cause was tried without the witnesses, and the verdict given for the plaintiff, damnages 131. After all was over, Mir. Builen wrote to Mr. Price, that the cairse was lost in conse. quence of the non-attendance uf his father, who alone could have proved the time of his birtb* and, according to the testimony ofthe maid1 desired her to tell her master " that he had better go into die King s Bench, and take the benefit of the Insolvent Act, but to have the goodness first to settle his bill." The chief ground of negli. gence was the onission to compel the attendance ofthe fatber by subpmena; but it appeared that Air. Price had never paid eithder debt or costs, and that the attorney for the plaintiff, Hay, in the fbrmer action, who also practised at Southeiad, was, on this orcts- sion, Alr. Price's attorney. The LorD CHIEF JUSTICE expressed an opinion, that if all the witnesses had been present, they could not have made out a defence, as a house was necessary to amrried--man; anzil -terefore, -or the mere occupadon, the plaintiffin the cause must have pbtained aver. dict, thougb probably for a less sum. MIr. GuBx EY submitted that, at all events, Mr. Price was liable to pay the costs tased-on the postponement of the trial, and expressed a tsh that the case should proceed. MIr. SCARLErT then proceeded to reprobate this action, as a ma. nifest trick on the part ot one attorney in a ceuntry town to destroy the reputation of another, and exalt his owp ; and opened circum_. stances from which it might be inferred that Mr. Pearce, or some one conndcted with him, intereeptcd the parcel on its way ; but, as to these.his proof completely failed, and, indeed,-It appeared that hi r. 'earce was at the time in London. The Iamrnea, counsel thea contended that it was no negligence in an attornay re- siding in the country, to refmrin from bringing his witnesses at a great expense to London, when from the position of the cause in thei tist its trial could not be exptcted as at all probable. With respect to the non-attendance of the father, it was to be observed in the first place that his evidence would not have gained the verdict; and se. condly, that no attorney could be expected to subpnna so near a re. latien, for whose atten ance he might-safely rely on his client. He would prove, however, that Mr. Bullen sent Air. Price for his father on the Sunday, who refused to come, and whom it was too late thenr to force by process of law. Under thlese circumstances, it was clear that both in law and justice the defendant was entitled to a verddct. Is support of tbis case, it was proved that thp plaintiff, having gone to tetch his fatner, returned without hirm A witness nameu W illiam Smith also deposed, that 1r. Pearce rged the plaintiff to bring the action, and said he would be respondiblefhr theevent; but Alr. Price then acclined to bring it. Mlr. GUhxEY, in his reply commented strdngl on the irainua. tdon cast on AMr. Pearce repetn the parcel, and abandoned, and urged that at all events Mlr. Bullen ought to pay the costs of pest. ponung the triaL The LORiD CHIEF JUSTICE tsld the jury that, as far as rc.. spected the verdict in the action "Hay v. Pice," the at. tendanee of all the witnesses could have made no difference, though they might have reduced the damages. To the extent of tne difference which the proof of the minority would have made, the defendant would, however, beliable, iflietiid becnguilty of aegligence. It was not, however, the duty of ar attorney to sub_ psena relatives so nearato the party deiring*o call them, as a father; he migh,relyon his clieat to produce thlem; i.d hereitappraelred that the father was applied to and refusedl O come, when it was too late te serve-him with a Esubpa But tthe plaintiff cotended. tbat, at- aU events, lie was enttlUed to recover the costs occasioned by the ge. lay,which would sot havearisenbindthedeifendantdeiivered bisbnefg. in ume. For these theattorney would probably be liable, iabwuas not entitled to calculate on the apparent position ofa caunein tbde - paper, than which nothsing could be more deceptive, -if the plaintif- had ever maid ther. But itwas a circumstaacew vrthy the attedt. tien of tbe jury, at this acton was brought by Air. Prce, whq c'a I) Mzzeea a.gnLnst tie pThisinff in ttie foyMeT Causge; a(Ia tlza btbzdr~u onef~tiii ~fthe d&mRges or cots Theiy si~h2 tbzd~e corside wheher lie hd 'su sided orwsc kI I LO salaj anydasage y resonof' these costs; and if tie'y tkt~gh hewasnn~ tey sigt fnd orthe defendant. The orycouLsie~3 oa oni tine)and tlier fbixnd a verdict for COURT OF KING'S BENCH. GrTLDRTALL. JULY- 22.