Slike strani
PDF
ePub

"At a meeting of the trade of cabinet makers and upholsterers of Cheltenham, held at Yearsley's hotel, on Monday, January 21, 1833, the following resolutions were adopted.

"First, It having appeared to this meeting that Mr. Nicholson has been robbed of certain rosewood chair tops by one of his workmen, which were purchased by a tradesman of this town (meaning the plaintiff), we deem ourselves imperatively called upon to recommend Mr. Nicholson to prosecute both the thief and the receiver, (innuendo, that the plaintiff had received the goods, knowing them to have been stolen); being convinced, that, were facilities not afforded for the disposal of stolen goods, the system of robbing must be speedily abated."

There was no plea of the general issue; but there were several pleas of justification, stating in substance that the chair tops had been stolen from Mr. Nicholson by a person of the name of Askins, and that the plaintiff had received them, well knowing them to have been stolen.

C. Phillips, for the plaintiff, opened the pleadings

Talfourd, Serjt., for the defendant, opened his case, and called witnesses in support of the pleas of justification.

One of the witnesses stated that he saw Askins in the plaintiff's yard.

Godson, for the defendant, proposed to ask what Askins said.

Ludlow, Serjt., for the plaintiff.-I submit that we ought not to hear what Askins said.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE.—Yes. What he said is evidence to shew that he committed the larceny.

The evidence was received.

1833.

POWELL

v.

HARPER.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Ludlow, Serjt., proposed to ask the defendant's witnesses, what was the plaintiff's general character for honesty.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-I think that that is a legitimate question.

The question was put.

Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages, 40s.

Ludlow, Serjt., and C. Phillips, for the plaintiff.

Talfourd, Serjt., and Godson, for the defendants.

[Attornies-Winterbottom, and Packwood,]

March 30th. DOE on the demise of SHELLARD, Assignee of HARRIS the elder, an Insolvent, v. HARRIS the younger.

The protection EJECTMENT for two cottages and a piece of land at

of communica

tions made by

a client to his

attorney, ap

Bitton.

The real question in the case was, whether a deed dated plies to all cases in the year 1825, by which the property was conveyed by the insolvent to the defendant, was a bona fide or a fraudulent conveyance.

in which the

relation of attorney and

client suhsists, and to all cases

where the client applies to the attorney in his

On the part of the lessor of the plaintiff, Mr. Stanley, an attorney, was called; and it was proposed, on the part of

professional ca- the lessor of the plaintiff, to ask him whether the insolvent had not applied to him to draw a conveyance in fraud of the creditors?

pacity.

An attorney cannot be asked whether A. applied to him to draw a cer

tain deed, nor

Ludlow, Serjt., for the defendant, objected that any conwhether A. ask- ference between a client and his attorney was privileged; and he cited the case of Cromack v. Heathcote (a).

ed his advice

for a lawful or

an unlawful

purpose.

(a) 2 B. & B. 4. In that case had refused to do so; and the deed

an attorney, who had been request-
ed to draw an assignment of goods,

was drawn by another. The validity of the deed was afterwards

Talfourd, Serjt., contrà.-It was held in the case of Williams v. Mudie (a), that the privilege was confined to cases where the communication relates to the bringing or defending an action; and, besides, no privilege can originate in an intended fraud. This is quite different from the case of a party confessing a by-gone crime to his attorney for the purpose of his defence, which of course would be privileged.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-I should not limit the privilege to those cases in which an action is contemplated. The Lord Chancellor has recently consulted with the two Lord Chief Justices and the Lord Chief Baron, and they considered that the privilege was not limited in the way that was stated by Lord Tenterden. The protection applies, in my opinion, to all cases in which the relation of attorney and client subsists. I believe that the case decided by Lord Tenterden was the first in which the law was laid down with the limitation that he put upon it.

R. V. Richards.-There was also the case of Broad v. Pitt (b), decided in the Court of Common Pleas; and the case of Williams v. Mudie was also acted upon in Ireland (c).

Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-I am aware that that case had been acted on since; but I consider that it has now been overruled by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justices, and the Lord Chief Baron.

questioned, on the ground of fraud, in an action against the sheriff, in which the attorney first applied to was not employed. At the trial, it was held by Richards, C. B., that the communication made to this attorney was professional, and could not be given in evidence; and the Court of Common Pleas, on a motion for a new

trial, were unanimously of opinion,
that the evidence of fraud, propos-
ed to be given by means of prov-
ing this communication with the
attorney, was properly rejected.

(a) Ante, Vol. 1, p. 158.
(b) Ante, Vol. 3, p. 518.

(c) We believe in the case of
Rex v. O'Connell, which was a trial
at bar.

1833.

DOE

d. SHELLARD

v.

HARRIS.

1833.

DOE

d. SHELLARD v.

HARRIS.

Talfourd, Serjt., proposed to ask the witness, whether the insolvent asked his advice for a lawful or an unlawful purpose?

Ludlow, Serjt., objected to the question.

Talfourd, Serjt.-I must ask it, unless your Lordship decides that there is no difference between a lawful and an unlawful communication, and that both are equally privileged.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-There is a great deal of difficulty in the witness's disclosing whether the conference between him and his client was for a lawful or an unlawful purpose, without our being told what it was. It might be that the party asked if a particular thing could legally be done.

Talfourd, Serjt., proposed to ask, if the insolvent applied to the witness to draw a certain deed?

Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-I think, on the authority of the case of Cromack v. Heathcote, that that question cannot be put.

Talfourd, Serjt.—That case can perhaps hardly be sustained to its full extent.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-I think that the safe course would be for me to abide by the case of Cromack v. Heathcote. I will, however, make a note of the objection. I am of opinion that the privilege applies to all cases where the client applies to the attorney in a professional capacity; and an application to draw a deed is, I think, of that description.

The evidence was rejected.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

Talfourd, Serjt., and R. V. Richards, for the lessor of

the plaintiff.

Ludlow, Serjt., and Justice, for the defendant.

[Attornies-Drewe, and Hinton.]

This case was mentioned by Mr. Justice J. Parke, on the argument of the case of Moore v. Terrill, in K. B., Easter Term, 1833.

1833.

DOE

d. SHELLARD

บ. HARRIS.

DOE on the demise of HIATT and Others v. MILLER.

EJECTMENT.

proved their title

April 1st.

The lessors of the plaintiff having A., having

Curwood, for the defendant, opened, that, in the year 1828, one of the lessors of the plaintiff had agreed to sell the land in question to a person named Blackwell, who had paid 5247., which was part of the purchase money, on which he was let into possession; he being willing to pay 1137. more, which was the residue of the purchase money, on proper conveyance being executed.

a

Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-If there has been any demand of possession, or any thing to determine the estate at will which Mr. Blackwell had, the plaintiff is entitled to recover at law.

On the part of the plaintiff, a demand of possession was proved.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE directed a

agreed to buy certain lands of B., had paid part of the pur

chase money, and was let into possession. B. had not execut

ed any convey

ance:-Held, mere tenancy

that this was a

at will in A.,

and that, if B.

had made a demand of possession, to determine the ten

ancy at will, he might recover

the lands by ejectment.

Verdict for the plaintiff.

Ludlow, Serjt., and R. V. Richards, for the lessors of

the plaintiff.

Curwood and Justice, for the defendant.

[Attornies-Warren, and Lambert.]

« PrejšnjaNaprej »