Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

these particulars, when committed in contemplation of $7,000, being the amount of said policies on the life of bankruptcy, would seem to be within the competency said McLemore, which plaintiff acknowledges to be of Congress. Any act committed with a view of evad- due, and a part of which it alleges has been paid. ing the legislation of Congress passed in the execution Defendant filed an exception (demurrer) to plainof any of its powers, or of fraudulently securing the tiff's petition. benefit of such legislation, may properly be made an The Circuit Court gave judgment for the defendant, offense against the United States, But an act com- and to this judgment the present writ of error is mitted within a State, whether for a good or bad pur- brought. pose, or whether with an honest or a criminal intent, The argument of the plaintiff is this, that the act in cannot be made an offense against the United States, question was an injury to or violation of a legal right unless it have some relation to the execution of a or interest of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff sustained power of Congress, or to some matter within the juris- a loss as a consequence thereof, and that the loss is the diction of the United States. An act not having any proximate effect of the injury. such relation is one in respect to which the State can The answer of the defendant is founded upon the alone legislate.

theory that the loss is the remote and indirect result The act described in the ninth subdivision of section merely of the act charged, and the principle that at 5132 of the Revised Statutes is one which concerns the common law no civil action lies for an injury only the State in which it is committed; it does not which results in the death of the party injured, and concern the United States. It is quite possible that

that the statutes of Louisiana upon that subject do the framers of the statute intended it to apply only to

not include the present case. acts committed in contemplation of bankruptcy, but The authorities are so numerous and so uniform to it does not say so, and we cannot supply qualifications the proposition that by the common law no civil action which the legislature has failed to express.

lies for an injury which results in death, that it is imOur answer to the question certified must be in the possible to speak of it as a proposition open to quesnegative; and it will be so returned to the Circuit

tion. It has been decided in many cases in the EngCourt.

lish courts and in many of the State courts, and no

deliberate, well-considered decision to the contrary is LIFE INSURANCE AND MANSLAUGHTER.

to be found. In Hilliard on Torts, p. 87, § 10, the rule

is thus laid down: “Upon a similar ground it has SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OCTOBER been held that at common law the death of a human TERM, 1877.

being, though clearly involving pecuniary loss, is not

the ground of an action for damages." The most of MOBILE LIFE INSURANCE Co., plaintiff in the cases upon the subject are there referred to. Baker error, v. BRAME.

V. Bolton, 1 Camp. 493; Conn. Ins. Co. v. N. Y. &

N. H., 25 Conn. 265; Kramer v. Market, 25 Cal. 235; Defendant wrongfully killed one M., whose life was in

Indianapolis v. Kealy, 23 Ind. 133; Hyatt v. Adams, sured, and the insurance company was compelled to pay

16 Mich. 180; Shields v. Young, 15 Ga. 349; Peoria the amount of the policy. Held, that the insurance com

v. Frost, 37 Ill. 333. The only cases that tend to the pany had no right of action against defendant for the amount it was compelled to pay.

contrary of this rule, so far as we know, are those of By the common law no civil action lies for an injury which

Cross v. Guthery, 2 Root, 90, of Plummer v. Webb, results in death, and the death of a human being, though

Weare, 75, and of Ford v. Monroe, 20 Hurd, 210. These clearly involving pecuniary loss, is not the ground of an cases are considered by the New York Court of Apaction for damages. And the act of 9 and 10 Victoria, peals in the case of Green v. The Hudson R. R. Co., giving an action in certain cases to the representatives of 2 Keyes, 300, and compared with the many cases to the the deceased, which has been incorporated into the stat

contrary, and are held not to diminish the force of the utes of many of the States, does not include a claimant

rule as above stated. In the case of Green v. Hudson such as the one in this action.

R. R. the plaintiff alleged that on the 9th day of Janerror to the Circuit Court of the United States

ury, 1856, his wife was a passenger on the defendants'

The opinion fully road, and by the gross carelessness and unskillfulness states the facts.

of the defendants a collision oocurred by means of Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court. which his wife was killed, “whereby he has lost and

The plaintiff, a life iusurance company, brought suit been deprived of all the comfort, benefit and assistin the United States Circuit Court against the defend- ance of his said wife in his domestic affairs, which he ant to recover the sum of seven thousand dollars, on might and otherwise would have had, to his damage," the following allegations:

etc. A demurrer to this complaint, upon the ground That plaintiff had insured the life of one Craven Mo- that the facts alleged constituted no cause of action, Lemore, a citizen of Louisiana, for the sum of $2,000, was sustained by the New York Court of Appeals. in favor of John P. Kennedy, for the sum of $2,500 in In Hubgm v. N. 0. & C. R. R. Co., 6 La. Ann. 496, favor of Sanders, Garner & Co. (which was subse- the same principle was decided, and in the same manquently assigned to John H. Garner, Sr.), and for

ner.

In giving its opinion the court say: “The $2,500 in favor of John H. Garner & Co.

exception of the defendants presents the question That on the 24th day of October, 1875, while said whether the death of a human being can be the ground policies were in force, in the town of Delhi, in Louisi- of an action for damages.” Not being satisfied with ana, the defendant Brame did willfully shoot the said this decision, Messrs. Ogden & Duncan asked for a Craven McLemore and inflict upon him a mortal | rehearing, the argument for which is reported in the wound, from the effects of which he died on the 26th eleven following pages of the same volume, and day of October, 1875. That the said shooting was an which was denied in an elaborate opinion delivered by illegal and tortious act on the part of said Brame, and Chief Justice Eustis. caused damage to the plaintiff in the said sum of In Herman v. Carrolton (R. R. Co., 11 La. Ann. 21,

[ocr errors]

this principle was again affirmed in an opinion by Chief son abate by death, and cannot be revived or mainJustice Merrick,

tained by the executor or by the heir. By the act of It is only necessary to refer to one other case, which Parliament of August 21, 1846 (9 and 10 Victoria), an involves the same principle as those already cited, but action in certaiu cases is given to the representatives wbich in its facts more closely resembles the case we of the deceased. This principle, in various forms and are considering.

with various limitations, has been incorporated into In Connecticut M. L. Ins. Co. v. N. Y. & N. H. R. the statutes of many of our States, and among R. Co., 25 Conn. 265, the declaration alleged that on others, into that of Louisiana. It is there given the 20th day of March, 1850, the plaintiffs had out- in favor of the minor children and widow of the destanding and in force a policy of insurance for $2,000 ceased, and in default of these relatives, in favor upou the life of Samuel Beach; that Beach was on that of the surviving father and mother. Acts of La., 1855, day a passenger on the defendants' road ; that the de- pr. 223, p. 270. The case of a creditor, much less a feudants so carelessly, negligently, and unskillfully con- remote claimaut like the plaintiff, is not within the ducted themselves that the train on which Beach was statute. riding was thrown down a bank into the river; that In each of the briefs it is stated that the defendant Beach was greatly wounded and bruised, by means was tried for the homicide and was acquitted. In the whereof he then and there died, by reason of which view we take of the case, the fact of a trial or its rethe plaintiffs were compelled to pay to his adminis- sult is a circumstance quite immaterial to the present trators the sum of $2,000 upon the said policy.

question, however important it may have been to the The allegation of the present plaintiffs is that Branie defendant. tortiously and illegally took the life of McLemore by Judgment affirmed. shooting him. This is open to the inference that the act of Brame was felonious. The case in Connecticut is based upon the allegation of negligence and care

RIGHT OF REVENUE COLLECTOR TO EXlessness, and is the more favorable to a recovery in

AMINE PAID BANK CHECKS. tbat it avoids the suggestion existing in the present

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, OCTOcase, that the civil injury is merged in the felony.

BER TERM, 1877. The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the action could not be sustained.

UNITED STATES, plaintiff in error, v. MANN. We have cited and given references to the important cases on this question; they are substantially Under section 3177 of the United States Revised Statutes, uniform against the right of recovery.

authority is given to any collector, deputy collector, or

inspector of internal revenue, to enter, in the day-time, any L'pon principle, we think no other conclusion could building or place within his district, where any, articles be reached than that stated. The relation between

or objects subject to such taxation are made, produced, or

kept, so far as it may be necessary for the purpose of examthe iusurance company and McLemore, the deceased, ining such objects or articles, and the provision is that any

owner of such building or place, or any person having tlie was created by contract between them. But Brame

agency or superintendence of the same, who refuses to was no party to a coutract. The injury inflicted by admit such officer or suffer him to examine such articles or bim was upon McLemore, against his personal rights;

objects, shall for every such refusal forfeit Ave hundred

dollars. Held, that under this provision, paid bank checks, that it bappened to injure the plaintiff was an inci- which were duly and sufficiently stamped at the time they dental circumstance, a remote and indirect result,

were made, signed and issued, are not articles or objects

subject to taxation, and an officer of a bank where such not necessarily or legitimately resulting from the act checks are may lawfully refuse to suffer the collector to of killing. As iu Rockingham Ins. Co. v. Mosher, 39

examine such checks. Me. 253, where an insurance company brought

"RROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for suit against one who had willfully fired a store upon

the District of Minnesota. The facts fully appear which it had a policy of insurance, which it was there- in the opinion. by compelled to pay, it was held that the loss was re- Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the mote and indirect, and that the action could not be court. sustained. In Ashley v. Dixon, 48 N. Y 430, it was held Authority is given to any collector, deputy collector, that if A is under a contract to convey his land to B, or inspector of internal revenue to enter, in the dayand C persuades him not to do so, no action lies by B time, any building or place within his district, wbere against C. So a witness is not liable for evidence any articles or objects subject to such taxation are given by him in a suit, although false, by which an- made, produced, or kept, so far as it may be necessary other is injured. Grove v. Brandenburg, ✓ Blackf. for the purpose of examining such objects or articles, 2A; Dunlap v. Gledden, 31 Me. 435. Aud in An- and the provision is that any owner of such building thony v. Slaid, 11 Metc. 290, a contractor for the sup- or place, or any person having the agency or superinport of town paupers had been subjected to extra tendence of the same, who refuses to admit such othexpense in consequence of personal injury inflicted cer or suffer him to examine such articles or objects, upou one of the paupers, and brought the action against shall for every such refusal forfeit five hundred dolthe assailant to recover for such expenditure. The lars. Rev. Stat , $ 3177. court held the damage to be remote and indirect, and Founded upon that provision in the act of Congress mot sustained by means of any natural or legal re- the complaint filed in the Circuit Court alleges and lation between the plaintiff and the party injured. charges that the defendant, having at the time menbut simply by means of a special contract between tioned the care and superintendence of the described the plaintiff and

the town. Some authorities bank and its place of business, in which certain paid of text-writers are referred to as holding a dif- bank checks were then and there kept, refused then ferent view, but we are not cited to any case in this and there to suffer the collector of the district, who country or Great Britain where a different doctrine then and there entered the bank for the purpose, to

ER

quested by the collector, which said refusal was then of the place of business is explicitly confined to the and there contrary to the form of the statute in such refusal to suffer the officer to enter the building where case made and provided.

the articles or objects subject to taxation are made, Service was made and the defendant appeared and produced, or kept, for the special purpose particularly demurred to the complaint. Hearing was had and set forth in the section. Owners of such a building or the court sustained the demurrer, the reasons for the persons baving the agency or superintendence of the conclusion not being exhibited in the transcript, but same are forbidden to refuse to admit the collector, the record contains a statement to the effect that the deputy collector, or inspector to enter such building plaintiffs standing on their complaint, the court ren- for the described special purpose, and the provision is dered judgment for the defendant. Error was as- that if they do so refuse and do not suffer the officer signed by the plaintiffs, and they sued out the present to examine such articles or objects, they shall for writ of error. It is now contended by the United every such refusal forfeit five hundred dollars. States that the judgment was for the wrong party, Persous other than the owner of the building or that it should have been rendered for the plaintiffs place of business cannot be held liable to the penalty and not for the defendant, which is the only error as- prescribed in the section unless it be alleged and signed for the consideration of this court.

proved that he or they had at the time the agency or Bank checks, drafts, or notes for the payment of superintendence of the same, and that it was a buildmoney, drawn upon any bank, broker, or trust com- ing or place where articles or objects subject to taxapany, at sight or ou demand, are subject to a tax of tion were made, produced, or kept, and that the two cents, to be paid by the person who makes, sigus,

person or persons accused of having violated the or issues the same, or for whose use or benefit the

prohibition of the section, then and there refused to same are made, signed or issued. Rev. Stat., $ 3418; allow the officer to enter the building or place of busi18 Stat. at Large, 310. Exceptions exist to that re- ness for the described purpose, or to suffer him to quirement in behalf of Federal and State officers and examine the articles or objects subject to taxation in behalf of county, town, and other municipal corpo- then and there kept in said building or place of rations, when in the strict exercise of functions be- business. longing exclusively to their ordinary governmental or Informations for offenses or penalties created and demunicipal capacity. Id., $ 3420.

fined by statute, like indictments, must follow the Cases arise where such an instrument is issued with- words of the statute, and where there is no substantial out being duly stamped, and in such a case the provis-departure from that requirement, the information, like ion is that neither the instrument nor any cops thereof the indictment, is in general sufficient, except in cases shall be admitted or used in evidence in any court where the statute is illiptical, or where, by necessary until a legal stamp denoting the amount of the tax implication, other constituents are component parts of is affixed thereto, as prescribed by law. Instruments the offense. Offenses created by statute as well as of the kind are required to be stamped at the time of offenses at common law consist, with rare exceptions, their issue, and the provisiou is that unless a stamp of more than one ingredient, and the rule is universal or stamps of the proper amount shall be affixed to the that every ingredient of which the offense is composed same and canceled, it shall not be lawful to record the must be accurately and clearly expressed in the ininstrument, and that the record, if so made, shall be dictment or information, or the pleading will be held utterly void. Provision is also made that parties vio- bad on demurrer. U. S. v. Cook, 17 Wall. 74; 1 lating those regulations by making, siguing, or issuing Bishop's Cr. Pro. (2d ed.), $ 81; Arch. Cr. Pl. & any such instrument, document, or paper, without Ev. (18th ed.) 54. being duly stamped, shall for every such offense for- Orders for the payment of money, including checks feit the sum of fifty dollars, and that the upstamped and drafts drawn upon any bank, banker, or trust instrument shall be deemed invalid and of no effect. company, are subject to a tax of two cents, and it is Id., $ 3422.

understood to be the opinion of the department that Such officer may enter in the day-time any building the exaoti specified is a tax upon the instrument, to or place within bis district where any articles or ob- be paid by the person who makes, signs, or issues the jects subject to taxation are made, produced, or kept, same, or the person for whose use or benefit the order so far as it may be necessary for the purpose of exam- or check was made, signed, or issued. Rev. Stat., ining said articles or objects. Unless articles or ob- $ 3418; 18 Stat. at Large, 310. jects of taxation are made, produced, or kept in any Suppose that is so, then it may perhaps be suggested building belonging to another, the collector derives no that a bauk cbeck, though paid, if it was made, signed, authority under that act to enter the building at all, and issued without being duly stamped with a stamp and even then his right to enter the same is strictly denoting the amount of the tax, is still an article or limited by the words so far as it may be necessary for object subject to taxation within the meaning of the the purpose of examining such articles or objects. provision under consideration, unless it can be beld

Where articles or objects subject to taxation are that the tax is merged in the penalty prescribed for made, produced, or kept in any building, by whomso- tbe violation of the requirement that the instrument ever owned, the provision is that the collector or shall be stamped at the time it is made, stamped, aud other officer named may enter the same, so far as it issued. Id., $ 3421. may be necessary for the purpose of examining said Such a question may arise in a subsequent case, but articles or objects, but the act of Congress gives the it is wholly unnecessary to discuss it in the case beofficer no authority whatever to enter the building of fore the court, as it is not alleged in the information another for any other purpose than that which the that the paid bank checks therein described were not act specifically describes.

duly stamped at the time the same were made, signed, Strictly limited as the right conferred is, it is a and issued, as required by the act of Congress. Instead nririlega easily defined and it is eanally clear that the of that the charge in the information is to the effect ine bank or place of business then and there under cases where more particularity is required either from the charge and superiutendence of the defendant; that the obvious intention of the legislature or from the tie collector of the district then and there entered kuown principles of law, both of which exceptional the said bank or place of business for the purpose of requirements are applicable in this case. examining the said paid bauk checks, and tbat he, the Known principles of law require greater particularity collector, then and there requested the defendaut to to be observed in order that all the ingredients which suffer him to examine the said paid bank checks so kept constitute a violation of the statutory offense may be by the said bank then and there in their said place of accurately and clearly alleged, and it is equally clear business, and that the defendant then and there re- that the intention of Congress requires the same fused the said request of the said collector. Matters thing, as it is obvious that Congress never could have not alleged in the information cannot be regarded as intended that paid bank checks duly and sufficieutly coufessed by the defendant, as the demurrer only ad- stamped at the time they were made, sigued and issued mits what is well pleaded.

should be regarded as articles or objects subject to Certain bank checks which had theretofore been taxatiou within the meaning of the provision in the drawu upon and paid by the bauk, it is alleged in the

act of Cougress under consideration. The Caroline, information, were then and there kept in the rooms ho Cr. 500; The Anne, id. 571; Conkl. Treat. (5th and vaults of the bank, and it is proper to say that the ed.) 546. said checks are described in the preliminary part of Authorities other than those already referred to are the information as "articles subject to tax," but it is not necessary to show that an information to recover nowhere alleged in the information that the said paid a penalty created by statute must state all the material bank checks were not duly stamped with stamps facts and circumstances whicb constitute the offense, denoting the tax to which the same were subject at the so as to bring the party impleaded precisely within the time the checks were made, sigued and issued.

provisions of the statute defining the offense; but Ingredients or elements not set forth in the informa-should it be desired to consult other authorities, it will tiou or other criminal accusation cannot be incorpora- be found that the following fully support the proposited into the charge against the defendant after he is tions. 2 Colby's Cr. Law, 114; People v. Wilbur, 4 served with process, and it is equally clear that paid Park. C. C. 21; Com. v. Cook, 18 B. Monr. 149; Steel v. bank checks, which were duly and sufficiently stamped Smith, 1 Barn. & Ald. 99; Conkl. Treat. (5th ed.), 548. at the time they were made, signed, and issued, are not Viewed in the light of these suggestions it is clear articles or objects subject to taxation within the mean- that the right couferred upon the officer to enter the ing of the act of Congress on which the information in building or place of business of another in such a this case is founded, and if so, then it follows as a ne- case is strictly limited to a building or place of busicessary conclusion that the defeudaut might lawfully ness in which articles or objects subject to taxation refuse to suffer the collector to examine the paid bauk are, at the time of the proposed entry and examinachecks described in the information.

tion, made, produced, or kept, and that paid bauk Penal offenses created by statute, whether to be pros- checks, unless it is alleged and proved that they were ecuted by iudictment or information, must be accu- not duly and sufficiently stamped at the time they rately and clearly described in the pleadings for the

were made, signed aud issued, are not articles or obrecovery of the penalty, and if the offense cannot be

jects subject to taxation within the meaning of the so described without expanding the allegations beyond act of Congress on which the information is founded. the mere words of the statute, then it is clear that the Nothing is admitted by the demurrer except what is allegations of the accusation must be expanded to that

well pleaded in the information, and inasmuch as the extent, as it is universally true that no pleading ini ovly charge of the informatiou in that regard is that such a case cau be sufficient which does not accurately paid bank checks were then and there kept in the said and clearly allege all the ingredients of which the building or place of business described, the court is of charge is composed, so as to bring the accused within

the opinion that the information does not set forth any the true intent and meaning of the statute defining legal offense against the defendant, as defined by the the accusation.

said act of Congress. In general, says Marshall, Ch. J., it is sufficient in a

Judgmeut affirmed. libel of informatiou to charge the offeuse in the very words which direct the forfeiture, but the propositiou we think is not universally true. If the words which

LEGAL NOTES FROM ABROAD. describe the subject-matter of the prohibition are

LONDON, January 17, 1878. general, including a whole class,

we think ERE is a universal complaint throughout legal cirthe charge in the libel ought to couform to the true cles, and, in fact, among all classes iu any way sense and meaning of the words as used by the legis interested in litigation, of the delay to business in our lature. The Mary Ann, 8 Wheat. 389; The Hoppet, law courts, especially on the common law side. 7 Cr. 393; 2 Pars. on Ship. & Adm. 386.

The Times takes advantage of the opening of "Hilary Examples of the kind where it has been held that it Term" to publish a statement three columns long, is not sufficient to follow the words of the statute are compiled by its court reporter, from which it appears quite numerous, and they show that many of the ex- that the term opens with 750 remanets, and that the ceptions are as extensively recognized and as firmly arrangements of sittings at nisi prius are such that settled as any other rule of pleading in such cases. not more than 30 400 causes are likely to be heard, Views of a corresponding character are expressed by so that at the end ut the term there will be over 300 this court in another case, where the opinion was de- old cases to be added to the new ones that may be set livered by Mr. Justice Story. Having stated the down for trial. rule that it is in general sufficient to allege the offeuse The Judicature Acts come in for a large share of the in the very terms of the statute, he proceeds to re- blame for this state of things, but the assignments of

[ocr errors]

the note are not responsible,

Lieb

seem to be the principal cause of the block of business. to do away with any suspicion that might possibly have So many are required to sit in banc, and so many at

been entertained with regard to tbe cbaracter of the

transactions in which he was engaged of raising large the Assizes, that the number and continuity of the

sums of money upon the security of fictitious leases nisi prius hearings in London and Westminster are upon the property referred to With reference to the greatly interfered with. Of course the remedy for specific lease that was the subject of inquiry, it apthis is suggested by the mere statement of it; a differ- peared that a sum of £15,000 was obtained from the

Credit Company, but, in order to show the guilty ent class of judges ought to sit in the appeal courts knowledge of the parties, evidence was proposed to be from that which sits in Loudon and the counties, and given that the same proceeding had been adopted in

that the jurisdiction of the minor courts ought to be en

twenty-three other cases, and the result was

£300,000 was obtained by this enorinous fraud." larged. In some respects, however, the Judicature Acts have not done what was expected of them. The

It was contended for the crown, on the above state judges of the common law division of the High of facts, that though Dimsdale and his accomplices Court hoped that, under the terms of the acts, they signed their own names to the fraudulent l'ases, yet would get rid of the jury trials sent to them from

their offense fell within the technical definition of chancery. But, whatever may be the proper con

forgery; and Mr. Justice Lopes so ruled; and he said struction of the statutes, the chancery judges have that, having regard to Dimsdale's position, his knowlproved practically too strong for their common law edge of the whole moral and legal responsibility he was brethren, and have made thein do the chancery work. incurring, and the vast extent of his frauds, he felt This, however, is no hardship to the general body of

bound to pass a very heavy sentence upon him-and

he did. suitors, as the chancery business would have been proportionately delayed by putting the chancery

Another remark of the judge is worth quoting. He

said: “If crimes of this kind were not put a stop to, judges to conducting jury cases. Again, the whole system of official referees has utterly collapsed. It placed in doubt and difficulty.” It does not require

all these important business transactions would be seemed, when the creation of these authorities was first proposed, that a sort of special judges to try com

any sympathy with Mr. Dimsdale, nor any particular

refinement of reasoning, to bring us to the conclusion plicated cases would greatly lighten jury work. But the official referees are useless for that purpose, be

that transactions, which, in America, are fully procause no one need go to them who does not wish to

tected by records, must here be protected by the do so; and very few suitors wish it; so that when their imposition of excessive penalties.

Mr. William Cobbett, a services are called in it is merely as a sort of clerks to

son of the historian, fell the judges, for getting up and submitting statements

dead last Saturday, in Westminster Hall, from an

attack of heart disease. The telegraph says: of fact.

The result of this state of things is likely to be the The name of this aged and eccentric gentleman, for appointment of two or three more common law many years past has been a kind of household word in

Westminster Hall, owing to his persistency in bringjudges, perhaps with special assiguments to nisi prius ing futile actions and pestering the judges with trivial business.

applications, and on Saturday he was making his way Au extraordinary case of fraud, resulting in an ex

through the central lobby of the Houses of Parliament,

toward one of the Lords committee rooms, where he traordinary sentence, has been concluded to-day.

was bent on prosecuting an appeal before the Lords One Frederick Dimsdale, a solicitor, a man of mature Justices in the phantom action of Cobbett v. Lopes," years, and a resident in the fashionable district of wheu he was seen to stagger and fall. Assistance was Mayfair, was convicted of fraud and forgery, and sent

promptly rendered, but it was in vain. He had died tenced to penal servitude for life. The following extract battle. In the Queen's Bench and the Common Pleas,

on the scene which for years had been his field of from a local report of the case gives a fair idea of the in the Exchequer and the now defunct Bail court, the frauds perpetrated :

contentious William Cobbett's more contentious son,

had, during more than a quarter of a century, waged " It appeared that in the year 1867, a gentleman fierce but fruitless war. He always conducted his named Latham, holding an official position in the owu case-unless, indeed, Mrs. Cobbett was good Borough of Margate, was possessed of a considerable envugh to move the court for him--for bold would quantity of land at Croydon, and he proposed to build have been the barrister who consented to hold a brief a number of houses upon that land, and houses were for a plaintiff who habitually fought with shadows, erected under the title of Belmot-villas, South-villas, and was accustomed to make his giants first before he

In the course of his building operatious Mr. tried to slay them. For some years Mr. Cobbett lay, Latham found it necessary to borrow money for the mainly, through his own choice, in the Queen's Bench purpose of carrying ou his building operations, and at Prison; and his delight was then to bring action on all various times large sums of money were raised from kinds of occult grounds, against the Governor and the different parties by way of mortgage. In the course Deputy-Governor. A writ of Habeas Corpus could in of the proceedings Mr. Latham got into difficulties, those days be obtained for the moderate suin of two and he eventually was compelled to have bis affairs pounds ten shillings; and it was rarely indeed, that, put in liquidation, and a receiver was appointed to in the course of a term, Mr. Cobbett did not indulge collect the rents, the whole of the different inortgages himself with one or two of these little legal luxuries, being at that time consolidated into one mortgage. for the purpose of being brought up to Westminster, Things continued in this way until the year 1876, when and moving for something against somebody. We it appeared that the defendant Dimsdale entered into always return to our first loves; and in the evening of negotiations for the purchase of the equity of redemp. his life the litigious patriarch reverted to his earliest tion on behalf of a person named Harriet Meredith, passion for the Palladium of our liberties. The case who was represented as living at Cliftou, near Bristol, of " Cobbett v. Lopes," a record now withdrawn forand whom he represented as his client. The purchase ever, was only one of a series of suits which this of the equity of redemption was pleted on the 18t indefatigable plaintiff had brought against ber Majesof January, 1876, and the effect of s proceeding was, ty's Judges in comuection with an attempt on his part that so long as the interest was regularly paid upon the to obtain the release of the “unhappy nobleman, consolidated mortgage, Dimsdale, who acted as the lately “ languishing at Dartmoor,'' but now seemingly solicitor of the supposed purchaser, was entitled to getting on very nicely at Portland (the Tichborne receive the rents, and in fact bad the entire control claimant) on a writ of Habeas Corpus. Mr. Cobbett over the property; and as he was believed to be a man was very well known to the judicial beuch-as well of large property, and to be carrying on an extensive known, indeed, as crazy Miss Flyte and the aggrieve i

etc.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »