DEGRAVES V. M'MULLEN.

Evening Star, Issue 3469, 6 April 1874, Page 3

DEGRAVES V. M'MULLEN.

(From the Telegraph.)

The decision in the famous case of Degraves v. McMullen (inspector of the Union Bank) will make a sensation in commercial circles. Mr M‘Mullen was charged by Mr Degraves with making and breaking a secret arrangement to let him have as much money at 7 per cent as he wanted, on condition that Mr M‘Mullen was allowed to shake oft some private squatting speculation he had entered into with Mr Degraves. So soon as Mr M‘Mullen got rid of his private responsibilities, said the plaintiff, he. stopped the supplies, and the jury believed the story, and the inspector was mulcted in a sum of LIOjOOO. The loser moved for a new trial and for an arrest of judgement, and his plea for the latter was that the bargain with Mr Depraves

was illegal, corrupt, and invalid, and being contrary to public policy ought not to be enforced by a court of law. The judges, by a majority, thought the trial was a perfectly fair one, and that the jury came to a decision on a proper statement of facts. They assume that the agreement existed, and that it was broken, but they decide by a majority, that Mr M.‘Mullen is right in his views, and that the transaction was corrupt, i.e., that it was an arrangement with Mr Degraves to play fast and loose with the moneys of the bank to serve their mutual private ends. It looks at first as if Mr M‘Mullen had accused himself of swindling, but the case is not really of that black complexion. The manager denied on oath the existence of such an arrangement as Mr Degraves indicated. At the trial the question was put to him— On your solemn oath, did this verbal agreement spoken of by Mr Degraves, or anything like it, take place ? Mr M'Mullen: No. What Mr M‘Mullen says now is that such an arrangement would be corrupt if entered into, and that he is entitled to the benefit of that consideration, while still denying the existence of the compact. But on Mr Degraves the decision does fall heavily. Ho was a director of the bank, and he protests that he did make the secret arrangement with the manager to get money cheap for their mutual accommodation, and he learns now that if he tells the truth he was engaged in a transaction which the Supreme Court regards as a swindle. The jury believed his tale. And the Full Court say that it is a tale of corruption. The money is not to be paid, and thus the only damages Mr Degraves obtains are those suffered by his character. There is poetical justice even in the law courts.