Secondaries'-Office, Cole...
.A U ury was sumnMoned to assess damages in this ease, which re- ferred to two orphans, and in wvhich Captinn Best, who is remrark- able for the fatal duel with Lord Camelford, waa the defendant. Mr. A RAIt IN, for thc plaintifl; stated, that his client had long lived in the humble capacity of butler to a respectable family, and had brought the present action in behalf of two orphans, in the cha- racter of admistrator to the effects of a man nanmed Newman. The amount sought to be recovered was 2531. Captain Best was well known as a man of fashion, who, like manv others, pur- sued a course of animated extravagance, which led him into sharp expense, but the correction of experience ha.d doubtless checked the itiipetuositr of his spirit. Fortune poured in upon him ir a rich flood, and'he was now in circumstances of great affluence. What the motive of the Captain was for refusing to pay the debt due to twvo orphans fornmed no ground for speculation in the present case. It was onlv necessary to prove that it was due, and that the plaintiff hadl acted in the best manner in thus performing his duty to thc children. Their father hal been valet to the defendant, and was, in truth, his faetoturm. As was common withi the servants in the fashionable world, he lhad, in the course of his scr- vice, amassed mnoney; andit as was cqually common he lent what he aizassed to his master, and kept an account with the defendant, as vould he seen fronta book that would be produced. In the year 1821, Newman was found dead in his bed. It wais known to a mnan w*ho was in the habit of keeping the books of the deceased, that the latter had advanced much nioney to his master, and it waa rememiibered by others that the deceased had mnentioned that lie hal mdle to the Captain a particular loan of 2001. It was with miuch difficulty that the accounta between the Captain and the deceased had been obtained. Upon a judge's order, one book had been produced; but the defendant said that another, in which the particular of the loani of 2001. had been made, wrLs not in his ower, as Mr. Harrison, his attorney, had it in his possession. Mr. srrnson bad since diel, and " de mortais nlU nisi bonion" was a maxim by which a counsel should be controlled upon all occasions. lie was a clever man who would not easily give up a look that might lit fatal to his client's interest. In the book produced there was fotud an admitted balance ot' 23L to the dcceased for daily dusbursementl; but in that book, tis the jury wouild perceive, there was one iteni on which he groundel his claims tor the orphans. On tde debit side was the following entry-" Paid for interest 101." There vere entries of precisely the samle sum due to the deceased for 3 years previous to his death from his nmauter. Coupling this fact withl the declaration mnade by the de- ceased, of his having made suct a loan, and the obstinacy on the part of the defendant in withhlolding the book in which the entry had been rnade, the jury, whatever ingenuity might be exercised by his advocate, coul( feel ito hesitation in pronouncing him to be in- debted to the orphans in the sun of 2001., with the admitted balance and interct. The book produced by the defendant upon a Judge's order, was then pto-luced. There appeared in it the successive entries of 10. per annuon, aN paid by the defenidant froni the year 1818, " for interest." Mr. AnRnIN then called upon Mr. Adolphus, counsel for the de- fendant, to produice the book containing the original entry of the al- leged loan for 201). Mr. AnoLPIlus strentmously objected to the prodaction of the book_tirst, on the gTound that the notice to prodttce it did not spC- city it With stufficient distinictness; anid, secondly, that proper tinie had not beent allowed for the p urpose, the notice having bhen only scrved on the previotts niglit. These objections the Secondary over-ruled. Air. A.1o Lva, r S then said, his client had not the book itt lhis pos. session. It w-as in the liands of Alr. Harrison's executors, wlho would nogive it up until they had exausines their accounts, and seen Wehetl`er any thing was due to thent from the defendant. The SECOVDARY said this was an insyfficient excuse. The pos- session of the defendant's attorney was the defendant's; pessession. an. the tormer might have been ;ubbpwstaed to attend and ploduce tltebook, n.twithstanding any existing accouttt. Evidence mighlt ntot be given of the contents of the book. Two witnesses were called, but it was objected that there was no evidence so show that the defendant hiad a knowledge of the contents; and that unless such a knowledge was shown, the contents could not be made to bind the defendant. A witness was called to give the evidence required, but it appear. ed that he had only seen the book in the defendairt's room, attd did itot know that the latter had read it. Mlr. Anoi.put.s then addressed the jury for thedefendant, and said, it would be proved that the defendant liad borrowed 2001. for the loan of uvhich lit paid interest, and tbet ititerest had heen paid through the hands of the deceased in such a Inanner as to make It probable that the items were those of payment by the acceased in behalf of his niaster. ,lMr. Ricitard Lowe, att offilcer in the Gtards, stated, thtat in 1817 he obtained front a Mr. Butcher asum of 2001. for Captain Best on his promissory note of a month's date. A year aRerwards lMlr. Butcher complained that he was not paid. IVitncss induced the de. fendant to pay interest on the sum, and received from his valet the 101. tor that purposc. The SE CON DARY eXpressed regret thtat the book caUedfor had not been ptoduced. The person who held it might have been subpeenaed by the defendant. Thc jury returncd a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 2001., witlt irterest and the admitted balance of 231.-total sum 2431. 14s. 7d. SECONDARIES'-OFFICE, COLEMAN-STREET, .11Acu 3. PINSET V. BEST.