HUMOUR OF LAW

Evening Star, Issue 20138, 1 April 1929, Page 9

HUMOUR OF LAW

THIEF WHO SUED PARTNER Much of the law’s humour consists in the wit of lawyers and the jests of laymen against lawyers. Everyone remembers the Pickwickian solicitors who prepared Mrs Bardell’s ease with strict regard to their salutary rule: — “In law there is no such thing as a trifle.” Jests against lawyers are often framed by men who, as a result of their experience of the law, have little but their sense of humour left. A little mordancy must therefore he pardoned (writes R. B. Sholl. in the Melbourne ‘Argus’). But the law has a fortuitous humour of its own, a humour of circumstances and incident, gems of which flash unexpectedly from the dark caves of its antiquity. Its annals are a human document, and human being do amusing and unexpected things. One gem is the “ Highwaymen's Case,” of the early eighteenth century. The original equity “bill.” filed in the Chancery Court to obtain an account of the profits of a partnership in highway robbery, commencing tiic suit, and corresponding to the Common Law writ; has not been found, but apparently it was filed on the equity division of the Court of Exchequer before 1725. The ‘ European Magazine ’ lor May, 1797, purports to contain a copy. ’ .It recites an oral partnership between the defendant. Joseph Williams, and the plaintiff, John Everett, of the parish l of St. James’s. Clerkemvell. who was skilled in dealing in several sorts of commodities,” and jdds that the parties “ had preceded jointly in the said dealings with good success on Hounslow Heath, where tlidy dealt with a. gentleman for a gold watch,” and that Williams had informed Everett that Finchley “was a good and convenient place to deal in. and that tlio said commodities were verv plentiful at Finchley aforesaid, and that if they were to deal there it, would be almost all gain to them.” It was further recited that the partie accordingly “dealt with several gentlemen for divers watches, rings, swords, canes, coats, cloaks, horses, bridles, saddles, and other things to the value of £2OO and upwards,” and how there was a gentleman at Blackheath who had several things of this sort to dispose of which WiOiams represented “might he had for little or no money. In case they could prevail on the said gentleman to part with the said things.” and how. after some small discourse with the said gentleman,” the said things were dealt tor “at a very cheap rate.” The parties’ dealings. continued Everett, were earned on at Bagsliot, Salisbury, Hampstead, and elsewhere, to the amount el £2,000 and upwards, and M illiams would not come to a fair account with Everett touching and concerning the partnership. The bill concluded with a. prayer for discovery of documents, an account of profits, and general relief. and purported to he signed at the foot by counsel. Jonathan Godins. On October JO. 172-1, Mr Serjeant Girdler, who lias been _ historically identified, appeared for Williams, and m-aved I hat the bill might bo referred to the deputy Remembrancer tor a report on the ground of scandal and impertinence. On November 13, on Everett's application, the bill was dismissed with costs, presumably to save further trouble. But he was too late. On November 2!) tlio deputv-Remem-braneer's report was before the court. Ho was ordered to tax Williams’s costs of the cause in full—for a purpose which appears later —and the court commanded “ tiiat a messenger or tipstaff of this court do forthwith go and attach the bodies of Air William White and Mr William Wreathoek. the solicitors for the plaintiff, and bring them into court to answer their contempt of tbi; court.” On December 6, White and Wreathoek were, brought before the court, and “ upon consideration had of the premises,” the court fined them each £SO. and committed them “to the custody of the warden of the Fleet till they do pay the, said fvnes,” and decided “ that Jonathan Collins, Esq., whoso hand appears to ho to the said bill, do pay the defendant such costs as the deputy shall tax. and the court declares the indignity to the court as satisfied bv the said fyncs, and not to be remembered by the deputy upon the said taxation.” The parties did not long survive the ease. Villiams was executed at Maidstone in 1727, and Everett at Tyburn in 1730. In 1735 William Wreathoek was convicted of having robbed Dr Lancaster, but be was reprieved from death and was transported. This is one of the strangest eases that over came before a court. It has been compared with an observation ol Mr Justice Manwnod, in 1571, when a plaintiff proceeded against, the men ol a, certain Hundred—a subdivision of a county—to make good damages suffered bv highway robbers in the district, for which the" Hundred was, by statute, liable. His Honour related how counsel had once set up in a similar ease a plea that a right of highway robbery might be obtained by proscription. “ When [ was a servant,” ho says, “to Sir .Tamers Hales, one of the justices of the common plea, one of his servants was robbed at Gadd’s Hill, within the Hundred of Gravesend, in Kent, and ho sued the men of the Hundred ; and it seemed the men of the Hundred; and it seemed hard to the inhabitants there that they should answer the robberies done at Gadd’s Hill, because robberies there arc so frequent that if they should answer for all of them they should be utterly undone. And Harris, Serjeant was of councill with the inhabitants of Gravesend, and pleaded for them that time out of mind felons had used to rob at Gadd’s Hill, and so prescribed,”—-that is to say, obtained a prescriptive right.