STOCK EXCHANGE MYSTERIES.—On Thursday, the Vice-Chancellor gave judg- ment in
the cause "Brookman v. Rothschild," which has excited much attention. The history of the transactions out of which the suit arose. was given by the Soli- citor-General on the 23d ult. On the 24th May 1818, Brookman, induced, as was alleged, by the representations of Mr. Rothschild, desired the latter to sell out 20,0001. of French Rennes, (about 16,000/.), for the purpose of investing the amount in bonds of the Prussian loan, for which Mr. Rothschild was contractor. On the 25th of the Faille month, Mr. Rothschild advised Brookman that he had sold the Rennes at 691, and purchased bonds at 824 with the produce. No ac- tual sale, however, of the Rentes took place, nor was there any actual purchase of bonds, the former being taken by Mr. Rothschild, and the latter furnished by him. It was not alleged that the transaction was contrary to the ordinary prac- tice of the Stock Exchange in similar cases, but it was unintended by the Solici- tor-General, that Mr. Rothschild ought to have stated to Brookman the fact that be himself meant to be the seller and buyer. Several other transactions in Prussian Bonds were subsequently entered into between Brookman and Mr. Rothschild ; in consequence of which, Brookman Jost about 4,000/. To repair this loss he was advised to purchase French Routes once more ; and no sooner had he done so, than the Rennes fell, and he was advised to sell again, which he slid also at a loss. It is indeed curious, as stated by the Solicitor-General, that in every case where Brookman purchased, the stock immediately fell, and in every case where he sold, the stock immediately ruse. In that of tine French Routes just alluded to, Messrs. Rothschild of Paris, not having bills to remit the proceeds immediately, Brookman was advised to purchase in again, the stock having risen in the interim. He did so ; and in a short time afterwards, still on the same ad- vice, he sold, losing considerably by both transactions. The relief prayed for by Brookman was restitution of his original French Rentes ; that Mr. Rothschild should take back his Bonds; and that Brookman should be reimbursed for his losses in the second transaction in French Rentes. The defence rested chiefly en the character of the plaintiff: who was represented by Mr. Pemberton, in his address on the 25th, as a person who could not put pen to paper without contemplating some speculation. It was further contended, that be had sought the connexion with Mr. Rothschild, and not been drawn into it ; and that the information given by the latter had in every case been the result of Brookman's solicitation ; that in fact Brookman was a regular jobber in the Funds, and sought Mr. Rothschild's advice as hundreds did with a view to frame his bargains advantageously. The unreal nature of the transactions, and the suppression of that fact, were denied, but no distinct evidence in support of the denial was ten- dered. The Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment, stated it as proved, that Mr. Rothschild was directed in the first to sell the 20,000 French Rentes, which he described himself as having done but did not ;—that no evidence had been given to show that such was the practice of the great mercantile houses of London ; and therefore that the plaintiff was entitled to receive back his Rentes as payment of the sum for which they were said to have been sold. In respect of 50,0001. of Prussian Bonds, alleged to have been purchased for Brookman at 8211. and to have been sold for him at 75/., his Honour found similarly, that no purchase or safe ever took place. and consequently .Brookman was entitled to relief in that transaction also; in the case of the other sales and re-sales of French Rentes, his Henour did not consider the defendant to have proved as he was bound to do that any real transaction had taken place; and therefore in respect of these also,
the plaintiff was entitled to relief. In respect to another case of 17,000/. Prus- sian Bonds, where relief was also prayed, the Vice-Chancellor held that the plain- tiff had been cognizant of the nature of the sale and purchase, and must stand by the consequences. On the whole action, his Honour found Brookman entitled to his costs. The decision is one of great importance, and will doubtless operate as a warning in all future stockjobbing transactions ; nor is it improbable that numerous other actions for restitution may arise out of it.
PICTURE Deatirso:—The King's Bench, on Thursday, tried a cause at the suit of Dr. Lomi, against Mr. Tucker, a rich attorney in Devonshire, for a balance of 36/. 10s. alleged to be due for pictures furnished by the plaintiff. Mr. Gurney stated, that the defendant was a man of large fortune; and being desirous of making a grand display of pictures in a gallery which he was forming, he had purchased of the plaintiff some very valuable productions, among which was a picture by Julio Romano, which was charged at 300/. and two by Poussin at 95/. A person of the name of Jeffery was called to prove part of the case ; and his cross-examination by Mr. J. Williams created a good deal of laughter. Mr. Williams—" 1 suppose those two pictures, for which 951. are charged, were no more painted by Poussin than by you or me.'' Witness—" Exactly so ; but they are good pictures." Mr. Williams—" What are they good for ?" Witness- " For a gallery." Mr. Williams—" Dist the defendant, Dr. Tucker,—I believe he is called doctor as well as the plaintiff,—did he suppose that they were painted by Poussin ?" Witness—" I presume so." Mr. Williams--" Where is Dr. Lotni now ?" Witnets—h In Florence, I believe." Ala Williams—" Is he a physician ?" Witness—" Yes ; a doctor in physic." Mr. Williams—"Indeed I Has he ever practised in England r Witness—" I believe only to amuse him- self." (Great laughter.) Mr. Williams—'. Then he has not resided much in this country ?" Witness—" No ; he would not bring his money to spend here. but brought over his pictures." (Continued laughter.) Mr. Williams addressed the Jury for the defendant, and said the question was whether the plaintiff had not been already overpaid for the trash which he had imported front Italy. The object of his visit, or rather vi,itation, in London, was to gull the English people with sham Italian pictures, and the defendant had been his dupe, having bought, as original, two pictures at least, which were not the productions of the master they were represented to be. The plaintiff's bill of particulars was thee put in, in which the defendant was charged for several pictures and other articles to the amount of 407/. The balance claimed was 36/. 10s. Lord Tenterden told the Jury, that if they thought that the plaintiff had bought the two pictures, which were charged at 951. believing them to be the original productions of the masters they were represented to be, and that, not being in fact the production of that master, their value was less by the sum which was now claimed—namely, 361. 10.e—they ought to find for the defendant. Mr. Gurney submitted, that the pictures might, if the defendant chose, be returned. Lord 'Fenterden—" No not now. You might have offered to take them back before bringing the action ; but the question now is, whether or not the plaintiff meant to cheat the defendant ?" The Jury found for the defendant.
Lew of Lino:L.—Mr. Saunders, an attorney of Bristol, had a quarrel with Lord de Clifford, and an action was the consequence. An article that appeared in the Bristol Gazette purported to be a report of the trial, and described Mr. Saunders as keeping a poaching establishment. It was stated in aggravation, that When an apology was demanded, the proprietors of the Gazette only laughed at the appli- cant. The London Observer, which had also inserted the libel, made an ample apology as soon as its falsehood was discovered. The Jury gave a verdict of 50/. We should hardly have noticed this trial, but for a rather strange doctrine imputed to the learned Judge who presided in the Common Pleas, Sir N. Tyndal. llis Lordship is represented as saying, " He was not prepared to say, that even a true report of a counsel's speech, 'without the support of evidence, would entitle the party (the party publishing) to protection ; for a counsel was guided by his in- structions, and was bound to urge those instructions to the best of his ability." From this doctrine it appears, that an attorney may legally and properly instruct counsel to tell a lie; that a counsel may legally and properly tell the tie, with as many corroborations as his fancy enables him to furnish ; that the Court may le- gally and properly permit the simple falsehood and the falsehood with circum- stance, but that the poor editor who is so simple as to trust to the vigilance and honesty of the bench and the bar, commits a libel, for which he may lemsally and properly be sent to Newgate. Law and lying are sometimes described as lieshand and wife ; and it would appear that time gentleman is not a little jealous of his helpmate, since he will allow no one to share her intimacy but hinmeelf. A SCENE AT SERGEANT'S INN.—OR Tuesday last, the Rev. Mr. 11 ohnes appeared at the chambers of Mr. Justice James Parke, for the purpose of swearing an atli. davit. Upon being charged by the Judge's clerk the usual fee of two shillings for the oath, the Reverend Gentleman became quite furious, and declared that it was all a robbery, and he would see his Lordship on the subject, if he remained waiting all night. When his Lordship canto out of his room in order to leave chambers, the reverend gentleman commenced a vociferous attack upon his Lord- ship. declaring that he would report his conduct to the Commissioners. His Lordship treated the matter with the utmost good humour, and the reverend gentleman exclaimed, "You think, perhaps, I don't know you—you are called the Green Park Judge, and you and your clerks have connived to rob Inc of two shillings for swearing an affidavit." His Lordship scented a little angry at this attack, and walked on ; but returned immediately on discovering that the reve- rend gentleman had taken up some of his Lordship's papers with his own by mistake, and politely asked the reverend gentleman to return the documents. The reverend gentleman replied, "You may get an officer, or go to the Old Bailey and get them if you can," and thrust the papers into his coat pocket and went away.—Morning Chronicle. THE LORD MAYOR AND THE MORNING HERALD.—in the coarse of yesterday morning the London Grand Jury came into Court (Old Bailey) with a true bill against Henry Thwaites the younger, and William Bytield Higdon, editor and pro- p ietors of the Morning Ilerald newspaper for a misdemeanour, in having pub- lished in that newspaper on the 10th inst. a libel on the Lord Mayor. The alleged libel appeared under the head of " City Intelligence," and was as follows :—" It is said that a large house in the iron and lead trade was yesterday accommodated by the Bank of England with a loan of 100,000/. The iron trade, we under- stand, is in a most deplorable state. At the present prices a loss of 10s. is sus- tained on every ton disposed of The great expenses which the stoppage of iron- works entail upon their being recommenced is the only reason for the proprietors carrying on their business at a loss like the one above mentioned." His Lordship, who is at the head of the large iron and lead house of Thompson, Forman, and Co., in Thames-street (and which is the only extensive horse that unites those two branches of trade), appeared in person before the Grand Jury, and swore that he never had occasion, at any time, to borrow money of the Bank of England; that the paragraph was totally unfounded, and that he had no doubt it arose from malicious motives; and that, if it remained uncontradicted, it was calculated to
of at once denying the truth of the statement ; which, had he proceeded by civil "A—w T-y-r, and W. C. D-11's,” fought at Jackson's Turret, near Limerick,
Previous page
