HIGHWAYMEN AT LAW

Hokitika Guardian, 4 September 1926, Page 4

HIGHWAYMEN AT LAW

(By a Barrister in London “Daily Mail.”) When the Privy Council were considering whether tho Government of Canada should share -a “bootlegger’s ’ swag by taxing Ins profits, lawyers naturally expected that tho Highwayman’s case would be quoted, and wore not disappointed. It must have been tho most remarkable one that was ever brought before the decorous old Court of Chancery, and, as Lord Darling remarkeil, “gave it a fit from which it nover recovered.” Briefly, a highwaymen agreed to go into partnership with another and, being dissatisfied with the latter’s honesty, filed a “Bill in Equity” for -an account of bis profits.

The plaintiff’s statement of claim was a model of impudence in legal form. It recited that he was “ski V- . in dealing in several. sorts of commodities,” and that the parties had “proceeded jointly in the said dealings with good success on Hounslow Heath, where they dealt with a gentleman foi a gold watch,” and that then they found Finchley “a good and convenient place' to deal in,” where “it would be almost aiil gain to them.” So it proceeded to show that the parties “dealt with several gentlemen for diver? watches, rings, swords, cftnoffi hats.- cloaks, ‘bridles, saddles and other things to the value of £2OO and upwards,” and. .the partners finding that there was a gentleman at Bkickheath who had several things of this sort to dispose of, which fiiiglm be bad for little or no money, “in case they could prevail on the said gentleman to part with tho said things” they, “after some small discourse with tho said gentleman, did in fact obtain tlie said tilings “at -a very cheap rate.” The bill further, recited profitable dealings at Bagsliot, Salisbury, Hampstead and elsewhere, to the amount of £2,000, but the defendant refused to come to -a fair account to tlie plaintiff in respect of liis takings. I:Ie therefore prayed the aid of the court. The court, like a certain Sovereign on a well-known occasion, was not

amused. It referred the matter, to its deputy remembrancer for scandal and impertinence, and, sending for the solicitors to the plaintiff, fined them ’£so each for contempt of court. One Jonathan Collins, who had drawn the pleadings, was condemned to pay the costs. The actual date of the case was apparently a little before 1725, but, apart from other difficulties in tho partnership, it eniilci not have continued beyond 1727, because Williams, the defendant, was hanged at Maidstone in that year. John Everet, the plaintiff, suffered a similar fate -at, Tyburn in 1730, and William Wrcntliock, one of the solicitors, was transported in 1735. There is no record of the end of Jonathan Collins, but if tlie Government ever takes a burglar’s income they will no doubt, to spare his feelings, accept liis description of his business as that of a gentleman “skilled in nocturnally ohtaining | commodities at a very cheap rate.”,