IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) A 1.0 I.I It 1^ 1.25 III 1.4 M 1= 1.6 V] '^^ ->/ % '/ /A Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques LVV Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiquet The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm* la mailleur exemplaire qu'il lui a ^ti possible da se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthoda normale de filmage sont indiquAs ci-dassous, □ Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^e □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagias D Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculte □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurias et/ou palliculAes □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque r~j/ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I — I Pages d^colories, tacheties ou piqu6es r~~\ Coloured maps/ D Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Pages detached/ [^ Pages ditachtes Showthrough/ Transparence D Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur D Quality of print varies/ Quality intgale de I'lmpression D D D Bound with other material/ Reli* avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intArieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6x6 filmies. [^ D D n Includes supplementary material/ Comprand du materiel suppl^mentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc, have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partleilement obscurcies par un feulllet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont it* filmtes i nouveau de facon d obtenir la mailleure image possible Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires; Wrinkled pages may film slightly out of focus. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Seminary of Quebec Library L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grice A la gAnArosit6 de: Siminair* dt Qu4b«c Bibliothtqut The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont At* reproduites avac le plus grand soin, compte tanu da la condition et de la nettet* de I'exemplaira fllmi, et en conformity avac les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed cr illustrated impression. Les exemplalras originaux dent la couverture en papier est imprimie tent fllmAs en commen^ant par le premier plat at en tarmlnant soit par la derniire page qui comport* una ampreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon ie eas. Tous las autras axemplaires originaux sont filmis an commandant par la premiire page qui eomporta una ampreinte d'impression ou d'illustration at tn terminant par la derniire page qui eomporta una telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles sulvants apparaltra sur la derniire image da cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole -h»> signlfia "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signlfia "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, ate, peuvent dtre filmis A des taux da reduction diffironts. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un saul cliche, il est film* d partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, da gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, an prenant le nombre d'images nicessaira. Las diagrammes suivants illustrant la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 U "^ - rt ; / //ut> ii^- J i^-^c^e / REPORT or A CASE TRIED IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, ts FOB THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAL; :'?'} WAS THE PLAINTEFfVP .^ 6»® VsitS^ '^.^.^o'^r AMD THOMAIS in. SMITH AND ANOTHER, ^ WERE DEFENDANTS, i Paoi THi Chai Lab Laf( dant' Tl Tl M Gem Ft to ui upon circi to y< two in in of tl depr 8uffe any notic Tl claiu &L{ bilit; in cc and the \ from your I REPORT. District or Montreal, Frotimcb or Lowsr Canada I IN THE KING'S BENCH, Thurtday, October 8, 18SS. Prtunt.^BM Honor the CuiEr Jostics, Mr. Justice Rollano. . . Thb case of « Louis Br.AMCHARD against Thomas Mitchsll Smith and Charles Lindsay," having been called, Mr. Day and Messrs. Cbsrrixr k Laberob, appeared as Counsel for the Plaintiff ; and Mr. AValker and Mr. Lafontaine for the Defendants. Messrs. Jones and Sexton were the Defen- dant's Attornies. The following persons were called ai Jurors :— Henry Dow, Francois Derome, George Harrison, Isaac Johnson, John Wells, Augustin Perrault Louis Duchantal, Robert IVilson, Charles M-17, in payment uf which he y;nye them two promissory notes payable in two and six months— the one becoiniiij; due in April IboO, and the other in the June following. About a fortni^'Jit al>.er his purchase from Sinitli &. Lindsay, the riuintifT, lilanchard, sold one half of the hats purchased by him to Mr. Stanley Bag;:, a nu-rclmnt of tiiis city, for the same price which he himself had given for them to Smith & Lindsay; and you will observe, gentlemen, that by this trinsaction, Ulanchiiid paid od a debt of £7ii due by him to tisigg, and received Ibut person's note for the balance of about i.'J5, payable at the same periods at which his notes to Smith & l.,indsay would become due. About the 29th of December, a month or live weeks from the orii;inal purchase of the hats in questicm, Blanchard sold out his entire stock in trade to one Daniel Bridge, (then a merchant hatter of good credit in this city,) including a considerable quantity of old stock and the new hats from Smith & Lindsay, which he had on band. The new hats constituted about: one>tliird of Hlaneiiiird's entire stock in trade, and tiiey were sold at the same price which he p:iid for them. The old stock sold well in consequence of being brought forward in connection with the new, and the sale appears to have been of a highly advantageous nature The entire amount of the sale to Bridge was .^-l-GU, for which Bridge granted his promissory notes payable at three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven months ; a considerable portion of which vvas indorsed with names of respectability and credit, and this portiim was made payable iit periods which Would have enabled Blanchard to make good his payments to Smith and Lindsay. Such, gentlemen, was the posture of my client's affairs on the 29th of Ja- nuary, JSSO. Fie had disposed advantageously of his purchases from the Defen> dants— he had approved securities ready and available to make good his first payment to the Defendants, and could look with confidence to a punctual dis- charge of his remaining obligations. On the 2l'th of January, 18 danti to justify them in their proceedings whs not m°..cli, if Ht all, more tenable. The information relied upon is alledged to huve been received from two iiidi- viduals at that time resident in tkis city — one of these individuals is Mr. Luman Yaughan, and Air. Peter Teulon ik the other. It is pretended by the Defen> dant Smith that he derived information from Mr. Vaugban to the effect thut he would not have trusted Blancbard six months before the period in question, and that he had sold out his stock in trade to Bridge. From Teulon was obtained the additional information that Blanchard owed him a note of some iive and twenty pounds, which had been for some time due, and still remained unpaid. These were the communications upon which the Defendants in this cause acted ; this was the entire information which they received or pretended to have re- ceived ; this is what Mr. Smith calls bring credibly informed that Blanchard was immediately about to depart from the Province— and upon these grounds, unsubstantial and unfounded as they were, be did not hesitate under the solemn responsibility of an oath to declare, that he verily and in his conscience be- lieved that Blanchard was immediately about to depart from the Province '. JHow he can justify Ibis oath to his conscience it devolves not upon us to enquire. But how he can justify it to the laws of his country is a question which you, gentlemen, with the sanction of the Court, are called upon thin day to decide. It is worthy of remark, gentlemen, (though now, perhaps, from circumstancet that have since transpired, it is of no great moment,) yet still it is worthy of notice, that the communications above alluded to, scanty as they are, were not given to us from the mouths of Metsn. Yaughan and Teulon, though both these gentlemen were then resident in Montreal, but were detailed at second hand by Mr. William Suter and Mr. George Proctor, two clerks in the employ of Messrs. Smith & Lindsay — thus presenting, through the suspicious medium of two individuals subordinate to the defendants, and dependent upon them for daily subsistence, that evidence which the Defendants were bound to furnish from an original source — a source from which, if consistent with truth, it might have been obtained with perfect facility. Without dwelling upon the minor and collateral points upon which the De- fendants vainly sought to rest their desperate cause, Cwhich they commenced by the writ of capiat on the 29th January, 1830,) vte come at once to its ter- mination on the 2d of April, 1U31, when, by the solemn judgment of this Cour*^, it was finally dismissed with costs. Thus testifying the opinion of this tribunal as to the precipitancy and illegality of Mr. Smith's proceedings. In consequence, gentlemen, of the measures thus rashly and unjustifiably adopted by Messrs. Smith & Lind.say, the present action for damages was insti- tuted in the term of June, 1881. The declaration filed by the Plaintiff sets forth in the usual terms, the making of the affidavit by Mr. Smith; the suing out of the writ of Capiat consequent thereon ; the subsequent admission to bail, and the final determination of the suit. These facts will be proved by the pro- duction of the record of the former cause. The Plaintiif also alledges that all these proceedings were malicious, and lays his damages at jESOOO. Upon this declaration, the Defendants have joined issiue by a general denegation. The first and most importaat matter that presents itself for the consideration of the Jury, and as necessary for the maintenance of the present suit, is the malice of the Defendants in the proceedings adopted by them. The law, gentlemen, in its contemplation of the kind of malice necessary to be established in actions of the nature of that now in discussion before you, does not require the mani. festation ok any positive malignancy or vindictiveness of feeling. The want of a probable cause to justify the proceedings adopted, affords a sufficient pre« sumption that the party complained of acted from a malicious motive. It is upon the malice as presumed by law from the want of a probable cause that the Plaintiff chiefly reliei ; though circuinitancei »r« not WKOting in the present caie which thoroughly indicate on the part of the Defendants an active and bitter feeling of hostility towards the Plaintiff. As an instance of this I aii|ht call to your attention the fact of the Defendants having issued an execution upon a judgment olitained by them against the Plaintiff subsequent to the suit of which we complain ; and having CHUted the miserable furniture of his bed* room, ail that he pouessed in the world, to be publicly sold by the Bailiff. We may perhaps be told, gentlemen, that they had a right by law to do so— that the law entitled them to enter the bedroom of the Plaintiff, and to strip him of the scanty necessaries of life— that the law authorized them to make known to the public the destitute condition to which they had reduced my Client — that the law permitted them to derive enjoyment from his wounded feelings. Be it so— they exerted their prerogative to the very utmost, and left no doubt as to the feelini- that impelled them. There cannot be a question as to the motive that influenced them in rigorously availing themselves of their strict legal rights. Whm it to obtain the paltry pittance of nine pounds, the sum for which the pro- perty of the Plaintiff was sold ? — or was it to gratify their vindictive feelings, their appetite for persecution against this unlortunate debtor ? Whether does the proceeding look more like a just and fair assertion of their rights, or a cold' hearted perversion of those laws which they invoke into instruments of cruelty and oppresiion ^ These questions, gentlemen, you will answer to yourselves— 1 leave you sufficient circumstances from which to draw your own conclusion. We return to the want of probable cause. In this case, as in the former one from whence it has arisen, the chief reliance of the Defendants for justification^ or, what is the same thing, for shewing a probable cause for their proceedings^ must rest upon the information received by them from Vaughan and Teulon. We have already adverted to the testimony of these gentlemen — the former of whom wtis personally brought forward by the Defendants, not upon the first trial, but upon that immediately preceding the present one— and whose exami- nation (under a commission issued for that purpose,) will be produced to you on the present occasion. The evidence of Vaughan, as given by himself, does not materially differ from what I have already stated it to be. The only informa* tion— credible information we will call it for the sake of the Defendants — which he gave to Mr Smith, was, that Blanchard's credit was bad, and that he had ■old out his stock in trade to Bridge. To this he volunteered, it is true, the ex- pression of an opinion, avowedly derived from these circumstances and these alone, that Blanchard was about to quit the Province to defraud his creditors. I beg leave, gentlemen, to call your attention to this point, as material to the cor- rect appreciation of the merits of the caie. For the expression ofau opinion up. on facts equally in the possession uf both parties, was not, nor can it in any case be considered as, credible information. It was no information at all. It was a far-fetched and absurd conclusion frara premises totally insufficient to warrant it — an arbitrary deduction — an inapplicable inference. Yaugh^ an himself states, in answer to one of the Plaintifi^s questions, that he did not tell Mr. Smith, as a fact, that Blanchard was going to leave the province, but that he only communicated to him the circumstance already alluded to, and then stated his opinion,^an opinion with which, no doubt, the self-interest of Mr. Smith greedily fell in. So implicit, in fact, seems to have been this gen- tleman's coniiidence in Mr. Vaughan's reasoning powers, that I dare to say, that had Mr. Vaughan stated, as the grounds of his opinion, that Blanchard had sold £10 worth of hats in one day, and had gone home to dinner at three in- stead of four o'clock, Mr. Smith would not hr ve hesitated in at onc« adopting the same conclusions, swearing that he had becii credibly informed and had eve- ry reason to believe, that his debtor was immediately about to leave the Pro- vince. We must say that the logic of Mr. Smith, whether derived from his own mind, or gathered from the reasoning faculties of Mr. Vaughan, was, to say the least of it, very 'ad, and akin to the reductio in abiurdum of the school- men ; and the consec nces of such blind, eager, and headlong credulity, wherever they may fall, all events ought not to rest upon the head of my un- fortunate client. This testimony of Mr. Vaughan, gentlemen, is the strong* kold of the D«fcndMtt— their rook end fortreii of defence. We ibell not| how- ever, leeve them to repoie there in fancied lecurity, became we have another individual to introduce to you, Mr. Tculun, who wai also a creditor of Blanch* ard, and with whom Mr. Smith had an interview ihurtly after, — pleaie to re< mark and remember, gentlemen, atUr hit convenatiun with Mr, Yuughan. In answer to the eager enquiriei of smith whether Ulanchurd was not about to leave the Province, Mr. Teulon, who, be it remembered, gentlemen, whi a creditor, who, having hit luipioion* cioited, had lecn Ulancbard himicif, bad examined into hii affain, and made himself acquainted with hi* circumstancci, hii conduct and hit deiigns^this verv Mr, Teulon stated to Mr. Smith, thut there wai no reason to believe that Blancliard was about to leave the Province, but that the grounds and reasons were strong to the contrary opinion, and that if the Defendant! would arrest him,tbey would eipose themselves to an action of dama- ges I This is not the opinion of an indifferent individual— it is that of a person looking out sharply for his own interests— it is an opinion from the mouth of a creditor, who will declare to you, that though his debts bad been for some time due, he would not have considered himself jutlifled in arresting the PlaintiiT, because no grounds existed for nuch a step. An opinion thus expressed by kuch a person in such a relation towards the PlaintifT, ought mott certainly to have been sufficient to have removed from Mr. Hmith'e mind the iiiiprcssions he pre- tended to have received from Vaughan's cummunication. Lpon uny man not pre-determined to act as the Defendants in this cause have done, rashly and un- justifiably, the conversation with Teulon would have latisfactorily and conclu- lively wiped away the unwarrantable suspicious they entertained relative to the conduct of the Plaintiff. There ii another and a very strong view of the present case, to which I would most respectfully call the attention both of the Court aud Jury, — and I would more particularly invite your attention to it, as it appears to me to have been too much overlooked during the whole progress of the present litigation. I have hitherto treated the claim of the Defendants against the Plaintiff as if it had been one of an ordinary nature and in the common course— as if it was a debt actually due. This, however, gentlemen, as you are aware, was not the case. The proceedings adopted by them were for the premature recovery of a deb*, for which they had themselves granted a term of iwyment, of which terra two and four months ktill remained unexpired. The general principle which governs the relations between creditor and debtor is, that no debtor can be called upon for the payment of a debt until the expiration of the term stipulated for the pay- ment of that debt. The term granted is a part of the contract in favour of the debtor, which the creditor cannot be allowed to violate at will. The law has, however, made two exceptions in favour of the creditor— the one, in cases oif mortgage upon lands ; the other, in case* of the insolvency of the debtor. Within this latter exception it was necessary for the Defendants to bring Blancb- ard, in order to jiutify their proceedings against him ; and not by detailing sus- picions, opinions, and information, but by proving the substantial fact of tnso/- vency. For tht proof of this fact of insolvency, the mere information given by a third person, or by fifty persons, of an intcntiuii on the debtor's part to leave the Province, however positive in itit nature, or -wt'tble in its character, is to- tally insufficient. The justification cease* to depend upon the information given, but must rest upon proof (\f the Jact, springing from and communicated by, that information. The Plaintiff then, gentlemen, founds his present claim upon two distinct grounds, the former of which is, bis arrest by the eitracrdinary process of ca- pias, without information to justify the proceeding — and the latter ground is, the institution of an action against him fur the recovery of a debt not then due. It must be apparent to you that should tbo Defendants even succeed in juKtify- ing themseivee upon the first— should they fully prove that they did receive cre- dible information to the effect alleged, nuch proof can in no degree affect this claim of the Plaintiff upon the second ground, namely, the institution of legal proceedings for the recovery of a debt nut yet due. Of justification for their conduct ia tbii respect the DefeadaaU ituntl bifore you utterly destitute. With- -jr- t, ' out dwtlling longer, gentlemen, upon thii branch of the e«M, I will aerelj mention that the loWency of the PleintiflT will be fully citabiiihed, and that you will hear fioiii the niouthi of ie*erel respectable witncMci, convenant witk (he alTitiii of the Plaintifr, that had he bcrn left unmoleoted by the Defendantit he would undoubtedly have made (;ood bit cn((MKenicuti toward* theni. We now couie, Kcntieuien, to Ihr iniporliiiit que»tion of daniagci. The mo- ney dcnmiidvd iiXAOOO. I am well aware of the difllculty which a jury muit neceiiarily experience in coming to a deciiion upon the amount of damages to b« awarded in reparation of personal wrongs. In the present instance, however, I am enabled to facilitate you in the eiecution of this part of your duty, by lay- ing before you certain important facts connected with the case, which) to • connideralile extent, will aflbrd you a criterion in making your estimate. The Plaintiff, when he faund himself suddenly and unexpectedly arretted and imprisoned by the Defendants, for the large amount of their claim, had one of three courses of conduct to purtue. He might either have submitted to the injury he had received, have paid to thr Defeudants their unjust demand^ and thus acknowledi^ed to the world that the imputations upon hit character were well founded, and that he was a fraudulent debtor about to abscond froon his creditors ; or, he might have lingered in prison during the period of hit re- sistance to their claim — a period of sixteen months ; or, he might, by sacrificing all his available means, procure his personal liberty upon bail. The last evil was the lea»t, and he accordingly chose it in preference to the former two. Af- ter remaining in gaol some twelve or fifteen dayii, he placed his roouiet and notes, to the amount of about jE350, and alto his books of account, containing the entry against his various cuttomers in the hands of Mr. T. S. Brown, of tbii city, who, in conjunction with Mr. Stanley Bagg, came forward and entered bail iu his behalf. The immediate and natural consequence of this hard necessity will readily suggest itself to you. The Plaintiff was at once and entirely thrown out of businesK — his hands were tied— his efforts were completely paralysed>-and ho was obliged to Keek out the situation of a clerk, which after the lapse of tome months he obtained in a retailing establishment, and from which he barely derived the means of a scanty subiiistence. This, huwever, was a result so necessary and obvious, that I need not dwell upon it, and I turn to circumstances of a more strikingly disattrout nature. The Plaintiff in this cause, in the spring of the year lb29, had tucceeded in opening a correspondence with Messrs. Midgely and 'Wilkinson, a mercantile house in Great Britain, of high respectability and very extensive business, from whom he had already received a small invoice of goods to the amount of iCl60 on very favorable terms of credit. So high, in fact, was the confidence he enjoyed with those gei.tlemen, as also with Mr. Leaycraft, a large dealer in hats and articles connected with this line of business, that towards the close of the month of December, 1B29, he adopted the design of relinquishing his retail trade and manufacturing of hats, and of making importations in the spring of 18S0, to be disposed of by wholesale. With this view he availed himself of • favourable opportunity of disposing of his retail stock, a large portion of which was of an unsaleable nature, and also of his manufacturing utensils, for which in the wholesale trade he could have no use. In the month of January, 1B80, while engaged in making up orders for Messrs. Midgley & Wilkinson, to the amount of I'rom jElOOO to ;£ 1500, to be shipped to this country in the early spring vessels, and preparing remittances to accompany his orders, he was arretted and thrown into prison — his means were locked up in the manner already men- tioned—he was deprived of the power of making remittances to meet hit en- gagements in England, and consequently forfeited the confidence and lost the credit which he bad previously enjoyed with his correspondentt there— and which, as will appear from their letters, they were nut only willing but anxious to continue towards him. Upon these facts, gentlemen, I will merely observe, that the Plaintiff in this case had opened to himself the prospect of a succesiful career in life. Through the correspondence that he had already establithed he might reaionably hope to extend hit commecciftl coanectioDiy «nd witk : i nduttry and inteRrity to arriva «t wealth and rtipaclability. The cliauoet were altO|{«thei- ill hii fnvor. Thounudi with meaai aud hopei not to be compared with bi>, are daily riting to influence and importance among ui. The obitaclee Ibat oppnue (hemielveii to u« in our outlet in life, are tho niott difllcult to over- oume— thcte, however, he had iuriuouiited— hiii path iiecmed plain beloro him ; but while eiuUa*ouriii;{ to realiie the ndvantn|{e« of hii lituntiun, be wai at onc« crunht-d by the hand of the Defendantn, and in all probability cruihed for ever. For no reaionfiblu cxpi-ctatioiit can be entertained that the opportunitiei which ba«c bern wristcd IVuiii him will evcrHttiiiii preiient themiclvei to hit accepU aiicc— he liat been tbruxt back into the !ht not to be omitted in your ilelibttiationH upon the subject before you— I allude to the distress of mind iutl'crrd by the i'laintifT throughout the progress of this unfortunate litigation. I Khali make no ellorts, gentlemen, to excite your sympathies or work upon your feelings, by a highly drawn picture of this disitress. The attempt, if made, would probably prove unkuccessful, and would certainly be useleu. Uut you, gentlemen, arc as well aware as I can be, that there are injuries which (ink more deeply into the heart, and exercise a more lasting and fatal influence upoa the destiny of their victim than tho.sc of merely a pecuniary nature — such inju- ries has the Pluintift' in this cause undergone. Was it an inconsiderable outrage to be dragged like a criminal through the streets, a public gazing-stock, an object of scorn or pity to the crowd ? — to be thrust into a common gaol among the refuse of mankind ?— to linger there for many days and nights with no thought but ruin before him, with no hope of relief but in the relentings of a merciless creditor. Are these injuries of no importance? — I am persuaded, gentlemen, I need not enlarge upon them. You will at once perceive the influence they must necessarily exert upon the character of any pei»)n— you must at once recognize their power to paralyze any cnc;igy — to discourage evtry honest exertion. You have, in fact, gentlemen, standing before you in the person of the Flaintift', a man who has been deprived of advantages which few possessed, who has sulVercd injuries of no ordinary nature. His ciedit ruined — his reputation destroyed— his plans cut short — his prospects blighted — his golden opportunities snatched from his hand, and himself consigned to the walls of a prison~-a prison, gentlemen, to which in all probability he will be forced to return, if iiis present appeal to you fur redress and protection be in vain. Cenllcmen, we feel strong in our case. We leave it to your common sense — to your perceptions of right and wrong — your justice and humanity. Should the Defendants exclaim that the damages demanded by us arc enormous ; we admit that the sum is large, but the injury that we have sufl'ered is greater. It ii large, but the means of those who inflicted that injury are proportionably great. Wo. ask remuneration adequate to our injuries — adequate to their means.— The evideuce, gentlemen, will now be presented to you, and, I trust, you will find from it that I have not exaggerated the strength of the Plaintifi'^s case. Mi'.Day then called the following witnesses in support ofthePlaintiflfscase: — Mr. Abnxh BiUG, who deposed that he knew the Plaintifl' Blanchard from hit youth, f laiatiff wat a clerk to witneU| and in 1888 entered into biuiacM B » ■ 10 on his own account. Plaintiff was always considered by witness as an honest, industrious and moral person. 'Witness had conndence in him, and assisted him to a certain extent in geltiiif; into business. Witness is aware of a transaction between the Plaintiff and the Det'eiulants in this cause. In the fall of the year 182[), Mr. Lindsay, one of the Defendants, called on witness and offered him a quantity of huts fur sale ; Ijut as witness did nut like the price, he declined to buy, and afterwards ascertained that the Plaintiff had purchased thcni. Wit- ness believes that Plaintiff save 10 oris percent, more than witness offered. The entire amount agreed upon by the Plaintiff and the Defendants was about dSS^O, and perhaps more. The credit given to the Plaintiff Blanchard was not extraordinary at that season of the year, and the bargain was not an extraordi. nary one on either side. Witness knows that after the Plaintiff had bought the hats, he told the witness that he had purchased them. Witness was rather dis- pleased that the Plaintiff had done so by offering 10 or 12 per cent, more than witness, and witness let Plaintiff know his dissatisfaction. A week afterwards Plaintiff came to witness and offered witness half his bargain at the price Plain- tiff gave for them. Witness closed with the offer, and acquired thereby an ex. act moiety of the lots of hats, and agreed to pay for them on the same terms as the Plaintiff — first of all, deducting from the price witness was to pay, viz. ^175, the sum of JE7S 10 which Plaintiff owed to witness. Witness thought it ungrateful, and was surprised and vexed at Plaintiff interfering in witness's bargain. Witness expressed himself so to Plaintiff, and when Plaintiff told witness that he had bought the hats, witness said shortly to him, '' Oh ! very well," and so left him. The circumstance of the Plaintiff's giving up his bar- gain to witness is not unusual— it is of dMly occurrence. Witness thinks that the transaction was fair between all the parties. The hats were of a tine qua- lity — and as the Plaintiff was likely to sell them before the next arrivals witness wished to have paU of them. Witness considered it an advantageous bargain for the Plaintiff, but as i he purchase was too large for him, witness thinks he acted advantageously in lotting witness have half of it. If Plaintiff" had wanted an advance on the price from witness, he would not have given it. M'itness is aware of Plaintiff disposing of iiis effects to Daniel Bridge, towards the end of 1829. The witness could not sa^ whether Plaintiff consulted him— perhaps he did. Witness recollects the »ermsof the affair. Bridge was to give endors- ed notes for the whole of his purchase from Plaintiff; and the Plaintiff 's mo- tive for selling off, was to relinquish his retail, and embark in a wholesale busi- ness, in the following spring. The sale did take place, and witness thinks that the terms between Bridge and the Plaintiff' were advantageous to the latter. Bridge v>as then in good credit. About live or si.ic months afterwards witness sold moods to Bridge on his own note, without an endorsement, contrary to the usual custom, and contrary to the conditions of the sale, which was by auction, at Le Hoy & Conipany's. The other buyers were obliged to give endorsed notes, but witne-iS did not require it from Bridge. On the 2.')th of January, JSSO, the Plaintiff lilHiichard's credit had suffered, from his having allowed a demand against hiiu to stand over. The Plaintiff owed witness's brother the sum stilted, and other sums to other individuals in town. Witness believes that there was a running account between his brother and the Plaintiff Blanchard. The circumstances of the sale from I'laintilT to Brid;;c did not induce nie to think he intended to leave the Province, or to defraud his creditors, but that his intentions were honest. The witness tliouglu that the object of the Plaintiff in th»f sale to Btidf;e, was to enable liim to p^iy whiit he owed to n liou in England, in order to obtain a I'm ii>r ci)iisi;;iiiMint cf t;uo,ls from th'.'Ui. The witness was coiisulttd by Phiiiiti'Tas to the way of rtniittiny; a Uill of J'Acliange to lOngland. The PlaiiitilV was born at l.aPiairie, una his family resides in town. The Plaintiff' '» pians were fair, in the opiinon of witness, and would hrtve been practicable hud he succeeded in ritiiiiiini; his credit in England. Witness thinks that if the Defendants had not a.re^ted the Plaintiff, they would have been paid the fust note, because the Plaintiff had etVects in hand ; but the second note would only have been paid, in my opinion, supposing the goods Torn £ngland had becu sent out. Witness is aware that Plaintiff bus been ar- i resti mol has| as faill to of Plal but! 11 as an honest, i assisted him a transaction ill of the year offered him a le declined to them. VVit- itness offered. Its was about hard was not an extraordi- i bought the s lather dis- t- nioie than t afteiivaids price Piain- sreby an ex- ^nie terms as to pay, viz. ness thought in witness's 'laintiff told " Oh : very up his bar- thinks that a line qua- vals witness ous bargain i thinks be had Wanted Witness is ds the end II— perhaps ive endors- "tiff 's mo- lesale busi- tbinks that tlie latter, ds witness lary to tiie auction, at i notes, but iSSO, the a demand the sum lieves that tliinchard. ee nie to but that e Mainliff hou in 111- The i'X change elides in lid Would li^'iglaiid. ty would nd ; but he goods been ar- I retted by the Defendants. Witness was informed of this circumstance hj com. mon report, and was certainly surprised at it. There is no doubt the Plaintiff has suQ'ercd seriously by it. There is a good deal to be said upon the question as to whether bis future prospects have been injured thereby. It was bridge's failure that inflicted tiie injury upon him, because his means were not sufHeient to bear it. iiridge did not tail until ei^ihtor ten months subsequent to the arrest of the Plaintiff by the Defendants. Witness cannot say precisely whether the Plaintiff's business would have been prolitablto him by care and atleutiou — but the competitiuu was great. Cross-examined by Mr. Walker, The Plaintiff' began business in February, 1S2?, on a small scale, and witness furnished him with the means. The house of IJugg &. Wait furnished him with goods to a considerable amount, say £l75, and he paid them by instalments of various small sums, until he reduced the amount to ^78, and this sum he owed Bagg & W'nh when he transferred the moiety of the hats to witness. The Plaintiff and the Defendants were utter strangers. Witness applied twice at Defendants to purchase hats, and thinks Mr. Lindsay called on him. The Plaintiff gave for the hats 10 or lo per cent more^than witness offered. Witness does not recollect how many packages of hats there were — ten or twelve. It was the object of witness to purchase all the hats. Witness does not recollect — denies entirely — in fact, can explain — that be did not call at the warehouse of the Defendants with the PlaintiQ'. The witness met the Plaintiff there accidentally, and examined the hats with him. Witness did not think at that time the Plaintiff wanted to purchase the hats — and could not think what motive induced Plaintiff to go there. Witness has no knowledge that Plaintiff had any business there, but to purchase hats. Witness never heard that Plaintiff bad any intention of purchasing the hats until he informed witness that he had bought tber^ -when witness expressed to Plaintiff a good deal of resentment for his having t .pped in and interfered. Witness thinks he told Plaintiff that he had made an offer to the Defendants for these hats— and then the Plaintiff's buying them was the reason he was angry. Witness docs not think that the Defendants made him any offer — they shewed him the invoice, and he made the offer. The Plaintiff' bought the hats at the price for which the witness could have had them, h:\d he been di»posed to purchase. It was after witness met Blanchard at the Defendants' that 1 informed him of my offer to them. The Plaintiff's purchase from the Defendants took place in the latter part of November. Witness' bargain with Blanchard for the moiety of the hats took place on the 2od of December. We began to talk together about it ten or fifteen days after the purchase from Smith & Lindsay. Witness obtained the hats from Blanchard immediately before the sale to Bridge ; about three or four days previous thereto. The Plaintiff's stock before his purchase from Defendants could not have been extensive — it could not have been more than £200 before the purchase from Smith &. Lindsay. Ulaiichard's sale to Bridge comprehended stock in trade, stoves, implements of trade, and lease of shop. Witness is personally accjuainted with Mr. Lindsay, one of the Defendants, but has no remembrance of Mr. Lindsay's calling on him lespecting the Plaintiff Blanchard's credit and cliaracter — perhaps he might have done so indirectly, but not furnuilly for that purpose, lias no reculkctiun of Mr. J^indsay's calling upon him, and asking in express terms his opinion of the intended sale to Blan> chard, and whether the latter would be likely to pay a sum of money equal to the amount of the sale ; and witness did not then say that he had a high opinion of the young man, and would trust him to the extent of M lOU. It is in the recol- lection of the witness that Mr. Lindsay did call on him, and took a chair. Wit- ness took half the hats from the Plaintift' for the price paid for them by him, although such price was about 15 jwr cent more than witness had originally offered. There were some hats that witness refused to buy from the Defendants. Witness docs not recollect having formerly stated, that his principal inducement for buying the hats from the Plaintiff was to secure, by some means or other, the payment of his debt. Such a feeling might have influenced him — it was an express condition of the agreement. The notes of witness' brother (Mr. Stanley Bagg) were given for the balance. Witness is not positive in stating that these 13 notei fell due concurrently with thoie given by the Pl»intiff to the Defendant!. The conditions upon which the witneii purchiued the inoiety of the hats from the Plaintiff, were the same at thoie upon which ihe Defendants sold them to the PlaintilF. The witness has no knowkdKe thtit Ntniilty HaKg's notes were payable at four and twelve months. Does not leincinbcr having stated that Ba^tg & Wait's debt was in jeopardy, but miijht huve stated thiit UagK & Wait urged him to press Blanchard fur payment thereof, Neither did he rcmcmbci' stating that PlaintifPs debt had been contracted upwnrds of two years. Witness did state that he had been obliged to tlun Ulaiichard, aiul knew that he owi-d money to others. The Defendants sold the hats to INuintifl' for unindorsed notes. Wit- ness, from this transaction, thought that the Defcndntits must have been very liberal merchants, to sell hats to such a person as ihr I'lnintifl' on such terms. Witness would not have given such credit to the I'litinlifl' Hlthough he would have given the Plaintiff credit, it would not have bdcn to such iiti cxtrnt. From witness' knowledge of the PlaintifTand hiscircunistniiceshc would nut have refused him a small credit. Witness is not in the hiibit of untnting credit to those who fail in liquidating their previous debts. When witness appliid to Pluintilf for payment of Bagg & Wait's debt, and expressed his surprise at the dcfuulf, the witness could never get any decisive and satislitctory rrply from him. Witness ascertained the Plaintiff's intention of embarkinif in wholcsaU- bu«incss about the time of his selling off his stock to Bridge, The sale to Bridge was a sudden transaction, and witness does not think thiit the I'lnintifl' Imd coiitenipluled it long before it actually took place. Plaintiff intindnd to remit home a bill of exchange accompanied with an order for more lntK, I'lnintiff intended to pro> cure hats of a similar description to those he had purchased from tlic Defendants. The Plaintiff, in witness* opinion, could not have procured them on more favoura- ble terms than he had purchased them for from the Dffendunts. The purchase was a large one for a man in the Plaintiff's situation, and he acted prudently in delivering up the half to the witness ; but witness did not think the purchase beyond the Plaintiff's means,'bccause if he had retailed ihcm he might have been enabled to pay for them. Witness thinks that Plaintiff's intention was to get out from England from £1000 to £1.^00 worth of goods, The Plaintiff obtained equally as favourable terms from the Defendants iis he could have gotten from England. The Plaintiff's debt to the house in England nmountcd to £170 ster- ling. To meet that amount £220 of current money of this Province would be required. It was in .January, IBSO, that Plaintiff coinniunicHtcd to witness his desire to commence a wholesale business, and also that he had oll'ered Bridge'i notes for exchange, but was refused, as no one would takn such notes. The Plain- tiffs means of paying his debts depended on Bridge's notes. The means by which the Plaintiff would have been enabled to meet his lirst notes to the Defendants was the note of witness' brother for £100, and Bridge's notrs. Notes at six, nine, or twelve months could not purchase exchange, although signed by the first merchant in town. Exchange is considered to be e(|uivnlcnt to cash. Witness knows from the information of Mr. Fisher, that one of the best of these notes was given to that gentleman in payment for a debt —and that another was paid to Mr. Hough. Plaintiff was arrested in January, IS80. No rnohnnge had then been purchased by the Plaintiff, nor had he cttented a " ;i not aware tvhether this is a general practice. The Plaintiff's goods u:r :. in June would be too late for the mar. ket. The witness knows that Brio, .Draiuenced business without capital, but he was sober and steady. The proiiu on retailing are usually 20 per cent. A still larger fer centage is sometimes realized ; but fioni 20 to 25 per cent is the average profit. Bridge's purchase, to which I alluded before, from Le Roy & Co. amounted to only £S0. In ten or fifteen months from his puichase of Plaintiff's entire stock. Bridge failed. Bridge's credit was bud during the summer months. Witness is doubtful whether Bridge ever took up any of his notes. In the end of ISSO or beginning of IBSl, Bridge made an assignment of his estate and effects. The brother of witness was a creditor, and co-assignee with Mr. Shedden — and bis effects came into the hands of witness' brother. Mr. Day was then proceeding to prove various facts by documentary evidence, when Mr.WALKEhjtosave the time of the Couit and Jury,cous€n'.ed to admit them. Mr. Walter Field was then sworn, and examined by Mr. Day, to the fol- lowing efi'ect. I am a merchant in Montreal, and have known Blanchard for a number of years, six or seven. I am acquainted with Blanchard 's bud. in the nected with ive the Pro- •norable. I i^> as an or. ^eous to the When he :count. In ine, tweWe h)) bought —and then IS a matter 'ere bene- ilfiiiing his that fundi me against )t have be- the Plain. I Mr Matthew Campbell. I have known the Plaintiff for eight or nin« years. 1 was acquainted with him in 1829. I did not particularly know bii affairs at that time. I heard of his -Jiaving bought hats from the Defendants in IH'i'.K I knew that u sale took place between Blanchard and Bagg to the amount of MlTi. Mr. Hugg paid for the hats by deducting an amuui '. due from the Plaintiff to him, and by giving him a note for the balance at three and six months. This amount was due from the Plaintiff on account of a sale made br Bagg and Wait to him. 1 am not aware of any running account between them, except what trifling purchases Bagg and Wait might have made from him occa- sionally. The Chief Justice thought it would be as well if the PlaintilTs counsel would restrict themselves to prove new facts. It appeared that this witness was only proving what was already in evidence. The witness resumed.— Blanchard informed nie of the terms of the sale to bridge, and asked my opinion of the advantages of the sale to Bridge. I thought it a favourable sule. I am not aware that the Plaintiff told me to keep it a secret. I think the Defendants would have been paid if they' had not ar- rested the Plaintiff. Bianchard's intention in selling out was to get rid of his retail business and to commence on a larger scale. I was aware of the Plain- tifl's correspondence with an English house, and I know that the English credit would have been advantageous to him. I think that I savv the notes from Bridge to Plaintiff, and that some of them were endorsed by other persons. After the sale Bridge's name was placed on the iron doors of the shop. It is not extraordinary for a person who has sold out t.) leave his name on the door, after he has no longer any interest in the propeity. The name of Bridge has remained on the door until very lately. Cross-examined by Mr. Walker, I am thirty years of age, and a clerk. I have held this situation in Bagg and Wail's employ for many years. 1 was with I3agg and Wait when the Plaintiff Blanchard and Bridge were in Abner Bagg's employ. I have been particularly intimate with the Plaintiff. I am not aware that the Plaintiff had any mean* Avhen he entered into business. When the Plaintiff sold the moiety of the hats to Abner Bagg, he owed Bagg and Wait £l7o. Messrs, Bagg and Wait were in the habit of giving orders on the Plaintiff for goods and money, in order to liquidate their demand against him, and such orders went accordingly in dimi- nution of their claim against him. A few days after his sale to Bridge the Plaintiff first told me his intentions, and gave me as his reason his plan of open- ing a wholesale business. To efiect this it was necessary to remit to England. The goods the Plaintiff had obtained IVoni England were comprised in what he had sold to Bridge, and he had some claims on individuals in Upper Canada, which, with Bridge's notes, might have aided him in remitting to England. These Upper Canada debts have not yet been collected — they amount to 4S0, and were considered as a cash transaction. I know from iMr. Mills that the Plaintiff endeavoured to obtain Exchange for Bridge's bills — these bills were payable at dillerent periods, six, nine and twelve months. I did not know that the Plaintiff was indebted to .Mr. Fisher or Mr. Hough. I know that Bridge's credit was g xid in May ISSO, but i know nothing of the slate of his affairs when he purchased fiuni Blanchard. Bridge was a dealer in tile same line as the Plaintiff, anil his store was at a little distance from the PlairlilV's. I think Bridge got a liUle money by the death of his father, but it could not be much. From my knowledge of Hlanchard's means, il is my o|)iiiii)n that he could have paid the Defendants, — tluse means coii>isUd of Bagg's note for i!lO(), and Bridge's notes at lliree. six, nine and twelve months, an-ountiug to it 1(J0. I made up a statement of Piaintitr's means from his books — and from the compa- rison of his debts and credits, the balance was in his favour. This favourable balance amounttd to some pounds. 1 myself told Plaintiff that some of the means he relied upon to meet, the Defendants' deinands were doubtful ; but he said in reply to this, that before his notes to the Defendants became due, he should have his English consignments to a»sist in meeting them. The remittance to England w«i not yet Diade— it would aniouut to £225, aud unless thii sum wai remitted IG I \i\ ■ be could not expect goods rrom England. I knew that Plaintiff wai in debt to other persons in this country. 1 know also that he could not succeed in obtain- ing exchange to remit to En^rland, and I am not aware that any thing has been yet remitted to Englnnd. I do nut think any person in Montreal would have CHSihed Bridge's notes without a xure indorser. When I was a clerk in Bagg and Wait's employ, I frequently went to Plaintiff to demand payment for what he owed them ; sometipies on these occasions I got small sums, and sometimes noth- ing at all. Mr. T. S. Browv. I have known the Plaintiff for five or six years, when he was bar-keeper at a tavern in the Market. I know that the Plaintfff was arrested. Application was made to me to become bail for him, and after he had been in prison I consented. Security was given to me. It consisted of Bridge's notes ; a bon for MSO ; the sum of £l5 in cash, and some other small notes ; the whole amounted to M-i2'). Mr. Stanley Bagg was the other bail. I cannot say whether I should have become bail without security. The Plaintiff's books where put into my hands after his imprisonment, and from my examination of these books my impression is that he was solvent, and that if he had not been arrested, be could have paid his debts. Mr. Walker objected to this sort of evidence founded on opinion— inasmuch as the opinions themselves were founded on the books, p.nd the books could not be received in evidence. The books might have been fab -icated for the purpose of the present testimony. Mr. Day urged upon the Court, that in all commercial questions the evidence must arise from the inspection of the books. The object of tendering the pre- sent evidence was to corroborate other evidence. The Chief Justice wished to know to what other evidence Mr. Day re- ferred. Mr. Day. What we intend afterwards to adduce. The Chief Justice. Then adduce it now. The present evidence is not legal, and cannot be admitted. Mr. T. S. Brown then proceeded with his evidence to the following effect. It is always advantageous for a dealer to get rid of his old stock, and buy new ; and this is more particularly the case when such dealer is in diiHculties, Nothing but the subsequent failure could have induced me to judge unfavourably of this sale. It is my opinion that filanchard would have been enabled to have remitted to Englai d, and to have paid Smith &. Lindsay, if he had not been arrested. Cross examined by Mr. Walker. My knowledge of the Plaintiff's affairs arose only from his books. I had no personal 'knowledge of his concerns. Three notes of £.50 drawn by Bridge were put into my hands — and two others of the same amount afterwards. The entire amount put into my hands was £34.'). One of them was paid, but the other four were never paid. I think Blanchard might have got good exchange for some of these notes— but he did not. He was solvable, if unmolested. The notes placed in my hands were about equal to the Defendants' demand against the Plaintiff. Bills of exchange can be obtained upon almost any paper in Plaintiff's situation. I think the second note would have been paid by Bridge if he had been pushed. When it approached maturity it was put into the Bank here for collection. I was not in town myself, and when I returned [ was very angry with my clerks for having vvithdrawn it from the Bank at Bridge's re- quest. Had it been regularly presented, and payment pressed for, it is my opinion it would have been paid. Mr. Peter Teulon. I have been a merchant hatter for many years. I knew the parties in this cause — and was aware that a sale bad taken place from the Defendants to the Plaintiff. I did not know this circumstance until after it had taken place. I heard by accident that Blaucliard had sold out to Bridge, and as the former was indebted to me in the amount of a note, I re- t I quil — tl due L ff wu in debt to 'ceed in obtain- f thing has been !al would have erk in Bagg and int for what he sometimes noth- years, when he e Piaintfff was II, and after he It consisted of •me other small 5 other bail. I The Plaintiff's ny examination e had not been ion — inasmuch looks could not 'or the purpose s the evidence ering the pre- Mr, Day re- idence is not lowing effect, md buy new • ties. Nothing favourably of bled to have liad not been s> I had no Bridge were The entire Jt the other exchange for lested. The Hand against ny paper in d by Bridge ito the Bank I I was very Bridge's re- <»■» It is my ly years. I taken place stance until sold out to note, I re. i n quired an ciplalifttion flrom him ai to the circumitance, and whether he could pay the bill that was due to me. He told me that he had sold out all to Bridge, — that the latter had paid him by endorsed notes — and that when these were due he would pay me. He also informed me that he had applied to many persons to get cash or bills of exchange on such notes. I asked him what amount of bills of exchange he required, and was told by him between jE 100 and ^300. I wished to know from him how, if he applied the bills to pay hit debts in England, he intended to pay his Montreal creditors ; and he answered, from money due to him in the country. He mentioned a sum of U^O due to him from one Barnard, of Niagara. Mr. Walkkr here objected to this mode of eiamination, by which the Plaintiff's own statements would be received as evidence. It was impossible that the Court could listen to statements afforded by the Plaintiff to a creditor when taxed by him for his conduct, and to whom it was his object and interest to render a plausible explanation. It amounted to the same thing as if the Plaintiff himself was placed in the witness box, and his own explanations were received in evidence direct from himself. The Court supported Mr. Walker's objection. "Witness resumed. I was satisfied with regard to the safety of my debt. On the day after this conversation with the Plaintiff I saw Mr. Smith, one of the Defendants, at his office. This was previous to the arrest, and the day alter Plaintiff's sale to Bridge. I think it was the day after such sale — but it was undoubtedly the day after I heard of it. Mr. Smith asked me if Plaintiff did not owe me money. I said yes ; on a note. He asked my opinion of the sale to Bridge ; and whether I thought it was an honest transaction. 1 said, that I had doubted it at first ; but that I bad gone to the Plaintiff and examined his affairs. I added, that I was satisfied from the quantity of his old stock on hand, that it was the best thing he could do. In conversation with Mr. Smith I told him that the Plaintiff had received in payment some notes at such distant dates that they were not negotiable ; and that he was trying to get bills of exchange for £200 to meet his English debts. Mr. Smith then said, that if Mr. Blan- chard would pay him out of these bills, he would give him money for the balance. Mr. Smith asked me to see the Plaintiff upon it — I tried several times, but could not find him. Mr. Smith asked me whether I did not think that Plaintiff had sold out to Bridge with an intention of absenting himself from the Province. I explained to Mr. Smith that the Plaintifl's only means of paying his debts was by selling out as he had done. Mr. Smith then asked me if 1 did not think he would be justified in arresting Blanchard. I told him that if he had any right to arrest, it would be on different grounds and by a different remedy — it would be by criminal process against Blanchard for having obtained the goods on false pretences— purchasing them for sale by retail, and then disposing of them by wholesale. This was two or three days previous to the arrest. Mr. Smith him- self, or one of his clerks, said something about information of some kind afforded to them by Mr. Vaughan. I told Mr. Smith that if he arrested the Plaintiff before the notes were due, he would subject himself to an action for false imprisonment. My claim against the Plaintiff amounted to £28, which I have since been paid. No concealment was affected by Plaintiff' of the sale to Bridge— he offered to shew me the papers relating to it. I was surprised when I heard that Mr. Smith had capias'd the Plaintiff. My information of the sale from Blanchard to Bridge came from one of my workmen, among whom the fact was generally known. Cross-examined by Mr. Walker, My note against Plaintiff has been paid, by my deducting it from his wages, he being in my employ. I think it was the day after the sale to Bridge that I went to the Plaintiff, from the fact of my Sliding both him and Bridge engaged in taking stock. I was never on intimate habits with the Plaintiff'— I knew him en passant. When I heard of the sale to Bridge, I thought it a very suspicious circumstance ; but the explanation soothed my apprehensions. The Plaintiff told me he had been at the Defendants to explain the circumstance. I know nothing of Mr. Smith's knowledge vf the Plaintiff. My convenation was not with Mr. Lindsay. l; 18 ■1: 1 never said to Mr. Smith that the PlaintiS''i conduct wai unjuitifiable — what I laid was about the false pretences under which he had obtained the goods. Mr. Smith appealed to be deeply indignant at what he heard about PlaintifTi sale to Bridge. I thought Mr. Smith's offer to take the Bills, and give the balance ia cash, after his claim was satisfied, very liberal on his part. The rest of this wit- ness' cross-examination tended to recapitulate Mr. Bagg's opinion as to execu- tion of orders in England, their date, arrival, &c. Mr. Suter was present dur- ing part of my conversation with Mr. Smith. The return for goods very rarely comes round in six mouths. The later in the year, the more injudicious I should deem the purchase. I should think the Plaintiff's engagements at the time of the sale to Bridge, amounted to between jC600 and £750. Mr. John Docoall. — I am in the habit of purchasing Exchange on England. I am not aware that to obtain such Exchange it is at all times necessary to offer the very highest character of bills, that is to say, when the Exchange is not of a very high character itself. Mr. Jambs R. Orr. — Knows the house of Midgely & Wilkinson, of CoIne« in Lancashire, the English correspondents of Plaintiff. The witness proved their haud-writing. They are very extensive hat manufacturers. I hold their Power of Attorney. Mr. Wm. Thumfson.— I knew Bridge in 18S0. I knew nothing contrary to his reputation. I indorsed a note of dE40 for him, which was regularly paid. I lent him several small sums of money, which he paid — one sum so lent was £iQ and another £5. Mr. William Clarke.— I knew Mr. Smith in .January I8S0. I met him in that month somewhere in Montreal, and I was present at a conversation be- tween him and Mr. Jones, his Solicitor. The latter was very strenuously ad- vising Mr. Smith to arrest the Plaintiff, on the grounds which Mr. Smith had stated to him. Mr. Smith declined doing this at present, and stated that it was an extremely delicate maiter, and that he did not wish to be precipitate. I thought that if the information as Mr. Smith represented it, was correct, he would be justified in the arrest. I did not say any thing to discourage him from pursuing this course. Cross-examined, I recollect that Mr. Smith said to Mr. Jones, that it was the first instance of the kind he had ever been called upon to adopt ^uch a course, and that before he did so, he would sleep upon it. He seemed very reluctant to do it. Mr. Samuel MK)lure. — I know the Plaintiff, and have never known any thing but what is good of him. I should not think him capable of a dishonest transaction. I know nothing about LSiidge. The Court here adjourned to the next day. t ;iM Friday, Oct. 4, 1833. The Court met, pursuant to adjournment. Mr Jkre.miah Blanchard was called, and was examined by Mr. Day, to the following purport : — I was a clerk in the service of the Plaintiff, from the month of June, 1823, until he sold off his stock in tradet o Mr. Bridge. The Plaintiff^^was a wholesale and retail trader, and had country customers. He kept books of account, into which the Plaintiff and myself made entries The balance on the books, ia my brother's favour, amounted to the sum ef £S8S ISs. 4d., and was due to him when he left off the retail business. The witness, here, enumerated the uamei of five or six country dealers, who did business with the Plaintiff. I 19 I— what I df. Mr. r*i lale to palance io thig wiu Ito execu- jeient dur- Jtry rarely ft I should time of lEnglaod. \y to offer it not of f f: Croii-examined b) .V*:. IValkxr. The document in my hand, to which I referred to refresh my memory, dur. ing my examination in chief, was handed to me, this morning, by Mr. T. S. firuwn, a witneii who wag examined yesteiday. I do nut know whether my brother, the Plaintiff, poggessed any funds at the time of hig arrest. The books of account were always regularly kep'c, and the debt to the defendants was en< tcred therein. Mr. Louis Lalanmk* I am a merchant in Montreal, and know the Plain, tiff. I knew him in December 1829, and January lUKO. I saw him daily, and I was for a short time in his store. 1 deal in furs. My uncle, Louis I.«lanne, the notary, who is since deceased, was then alive. Some two or three months before the arrest of the Plaintiff, I saw liim and my uncle engaged together. I was told that they were engaged in making orders. I think 1 saw oiders, a- mounting to JEIOOO, or £1200. The Plaintiff applied to me for advice respect- ing Bills of Exchange, and the best mode of procuring them. I think Exchange might be procured on bills at six months. I believe that there was a good deal of Exchange in the market at the time to which this transaction refers. My opinion of the Plaintiff's character was always good ; and I had a great respect for him, as an honest, industrious, and steady young man. There was a talk uf the Plaintin''s going to the Indian country, in Upper Canada, on my account, to purchase furs for me. He did not make any attempts to conceal his sale to Bridge. 1 advised the sale to Uridite, when I was congulted on its propriety and advantageg by Blanchard. Bridge's :-ign remained over the door of the shop for ten or twelve months, after he had quitted the place. Cross-examined by Mr. Walker, I know that long notes have been exchanged, and I think that it often occurs. In the month of January lb29, there was a quantity of Government Exchange in the market. The rate of Exchange is determined by the amount of money in the market. The present rate of Exchange is from 7^ to 9 per cent. In 182S Exchange was high. I was formerly examined in this cause. I have had conversations with the Plaintiff and his brother' on these matters since the last trial. About the middle of January 1B30, I had a conversation with the Plain- tiff relative to his going to L'pper Canada-~-this intention was prevented from being carried into efft^ct by the arrest of the Plaintiff'. I know that, had Plain- tiff succeeded in obtaining Exchange, he intended to go to Upper Canada. Mr. Henry Hebgrt. I know the parties in this cause, and 1 worked for the Plaintiff in 1829. 1 was foreman iii the Plaintiff's manufacturing shop. He bad a manufactory of hats, both in town and country. I was present when the Plaintiff bought the hats from the Defendants. I was in the Plaintiff's shop at the time Mr. IJndsay bargained for the sale of the hats, and also tvhen the hats arrived. I recollect that the Plaintiff observed to Mr. Lindsay that the hats were high. The Plaintiff sold hats by wholesale, and witness assisted in mak- ing up the packages. Cross-examined, I speak of the Plaintiff's success in business from actual observation. I do not know the names of the country traders who had dealings with the Plaintiff, but he was in the habit of sending hats into the country every week. The Plaintiff once told me that he intended to sell out entirely, and to embark in another line of business. Mr. EcsTACHE St. Denis. I know Daniel Bridge. He bad transactions with Mr Young, the auctioneer, and purchased from him on credit, for small amounts—this was in 1829. Bridge paid lor them all, with the exception of one purchase, which remains still unpaid, and which was contracted two or three months before his failure. Bridge's credit was good at the time he contracted this last debt. Bridge's name was on the door of the shop which the Plaintiff had previously occupied. It sometimei occurs that, when a merchant sells out, 20 N he leavei hit name on the premises for lojie time — thii it uorc iiiicly to occur when the party leaving enjoyed » good credit. CroH-eiamined by Mr. M^alkkr, My only knowledge of Bridge aroie from hit imall purchMCS at Mr. Youog't. The credits were for small sums. These small debts were collected in the usual manner, by calling for them, and then they were paid. J, myself, purchased the stock in trade of Mr. Bruneau, and left his name on the premises for soma months. Bridge put his own name on the store he had from Plaintiff, a short time after he acquired it from him. The object of leaving the name over the door, is to secure the custom of those who dealt with the former occupier. I cannot assign any reason why Bridge should have been induced to leave the Plaintiff's name over the door. I do not suppose merchants would grant credit to me, because Bruneau's name was over my door. The evidence of Danirl Bridgk, as taken under a Commimon Rogatoire, •t New York, on the 25th Sept 1S38, was here put in and read, to the fol- lowing purport :^ 1 know the Plaintiff, but only know the DefendanU by sight. 1 was a mer> chant hatter at Montreal, in November and December lb29 ; and in the latter month, I purchased from the Plaintiff, hats, trimmings, and hatting tools, to the amount of £460, Halifax currency, by notes of hand, payable at different times. Plaintiff was a hat merchant at that time, and engaged in the importation and manufacture uf hats. The Plaintiff dealt both by wholesale and retail. Part of the stock transferred to me by the Plaintiff, was old stock. The new hat* had been previously purchased by Blanchard from the Defendants. I gav« promissory notes in payment for the stock of the Plaintiff. There were nine notes in all, drawn by me. Two or three of them, 1 think, were made payable to, and endorsed by, N. Parker ; the others were made payable to the Plaintiff—" the first was at three months after date^the others at intervals of a month, ex> cept the last, which was at one year from date, and all without interest. They were each for £50, except the last, which was for JE60. The sum at which I purchased the Plaintiff's entire stock, was its just value. I understood the Plain- tiff's motives in selling out, and his intentions after were to embark in a wholesale concern. I have no reason to suspect that the Plaintiff intended to abscond from the Province. At the time of the sale to me, 1 believe that the Plaintiff was solvent — but my belief arises from representations made, and documents exhibited to me, by the Plantiff himself. Know Mr. Luman Vuughan, and have been indebted to him ; but I do not recollect having had any conversation with him relative to the purchase made by me from the Plaintiff. 1 never told Mr. Vaughan that Blanchard had desired me to keep the transaction secret ; and I never requested him not to mention to any one that I had bought Blanchard's stock. I never gave Vaughau to understand that there were any suspicious cir- cumstances connected with the Plaintiff's selling out to me. 1 never told Mr. Vaughan, or gave him to understand, that Blanchard was about to leave the Province. This is all I know. To the cross interrogatories, he replied— 1 purchased from Blanchard at the invoice price ; and the Plaintiff could not realize any profit on them, by his sale to me. The sale consisted of the entire stock, and the lease of the shop. I paid the Fiaintifif nu consideration for the assignment of his lease. I do not think that my purchase of the Plaintiff's stock was an advantageous one. « Mr. Day then put in a notarial copy of the sale and transfer by Blanchard to Bridge, which will be found in the Appendix. This was the Plaintiff's case. 1 vy to oc«ur h YouDg'a. f) the usual Ipurchaied J' for torn* Iff, a short Je oyer the Icupier. I " leave the nt credit i'>gatoire, \o tke fol. M a Dier. the latter Is. to the ent timei. atioo and lil. Phrt new hats J gave )ioe notes 'e to, and 'laintiff.^ outh, ex- 't. They t which I i»e Piain. ivholesaie > abscond Piaintiff Jcuments ind have ion with told Mr. '; and I Dchard's oug cir- t>ld Mr. ave the uld not ' entire for the lintiff's aid to % 81 Mr. Walkm, who led the mm for the U«r rcitdttnt*, then aildresifd the Court and Jury, and prefaced his remarks by uli»er«ing — that cxhauklvil as (lie Juiy must be from the time and attention already devoted to h trial whicli bad run ho far into the second day, he should consider himself highly cul|Mtbk', were he to occupy their attention beyond the further time «*hich might h: abkolutcly ne- cessary to put them in possession of the case on the paitof the Dcftrnduntk, The case to him also was deprived ul (he attractions of novelty, 'i'hc pre- tensions of the respective particn had uiidcrK»ne the ordeal of public investii^a- tion upon several occasions— thai in all the discuuiuns he hud borne a part— uiid that hik assumption of respoiisibilit.v upon the present occukion, with a mind jadid and fatigued by its previous efforts, and an indifference to the result approHch- ing to apathy, must be attributed to a sense of profensioiial duty spiinging out of the relation in which he stood toward* the Defeiidunis, and an Hntiity in some measure to justify their generous but misplaced coiifKlencc in his exertions. That the case has been already under the consideration of two succi.ssive Ju- ries, and the verdict upon each occasion set aside — in the first instance, on the ground of excessive and unwarrantable damuges — in the latter, because there was more than reasonable cause to ku»prct that the opinions of the Jury bad been influenced by representations proceeding liuni individuals connected with the Plaintiff, who had espoused his cause with more zeal than discretion — and be- trayed an anxiety far from becoming, in the result of the suit. That DO allusion to the former iiroccvdings, however, could or ou)>ht to in- terfere with the sentiments of impartiality which the Jury were bound to bring to the consideration of the case. They would discaid all previous impressions, ■nd consult their own deliberate judgment!, unaffected by any of the various opinions which might have been already expressed. That a third trial of the same cause was of rare occurrence in this Province, but the case was one of a peculiar character ; of considerable moment in point of law ; of great interest to the parties ; and of general importance to trade. That it concerned the public that the law under which the Defendants acted should not be misunderstood. An ordinance of this Province had given a reme- dy to the creditor against the |>erson of his debtor about to depart from it, with, out declaring what overt acts should justify an appeal to itN provihions, or con. stitute a reasonable prouf of the debtor's intentions. That it argues an extreme- ly superficial knowledge of the laws and principles of human action, to contend, as had been done by the Plaintiff here, that the evidence of an intention to abscond should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. That covered crimes or fraudulent intentions must be detected by circumstances or not at all — that there existed no means of establishing an internal act of the mind— that the conclusion drawn by the creditor from circumstances of no very unequivocal chatacter, fall- ing under his own observation, or communicated by others, might possibly prove to be erroneous, without exposing the creditor to the imputation of being influ- enced by motives of an improper character, or subjecting him to the animadver- sions of the law. That if the construction of the law which had been contended for by the Plaintiff's counsel were to be sanctioned by the deliberate opinion and judgment of the Bench and,Jury, the security interposed for the protection of creditors, would prove to be'a delusion — tlwt the vague and naked geneiality of the lau. guage in which the Legislature had pronounced itself had suggested the opinion, that the fact of an intention to abscond must be established by direct evidence^ as if it was consistent with our experience of human nature, that our first know- ledge of crime, or the existence of a criminal intention, was to be derived from the spontaneous and unsolicited avowal* of the party. That the direct evidence of the intention could only be collected from its accomplishment. That this im- pression had in numberlesk iostaDCci deterred creditors from adopting the conser- vative process against the persona of ibclr debtors, in cases where circumstance* afterwards disclosed went to confirm the suspicions previously entertained. That debtors had not been rcnii** in taking advantage of the creditor wko had acted upon moral convictions, created and strengthened by circumstances ; however uB8upp«rted by potitive piuof ; lud bid icadcied tkeic owo fraudulent V Wi I nr equivocHl cniuluct inktrunicntiil to their pecuniury iidvant«Ke ; leeking u wai loiiuht by tlie Ill-Client IMiiiiitifl', toexpunne a debt by dnniRKei. TliMt the DelcndHiitx were admitted to have lo»t £400 by the act ofthe Plain* tiff'. IliH couiuel cuuld Inirdiy deny that hii conduct wui obnoxioua to luipicion. It wax indirectly admitted Ihut hiii conduct mJKht have juitified an attachment of bin cflTect*. fie therefoie could liavc no ju»t cauie of complaint a^ainit the DcfcndaiitH— iiiii ititUHtion nan the con>ci|iienco of hiv own iniiconduct— of the deceit which he bad iitacliu'd ; and, however cuniideiationii of humanity might pr poitsiblu cuntequenco, no feelings of iMdi(;nation could justly nllacb to the creditor who bad fuflerrd no largely by hii folly, bin niiNCoiiduct, or his fraud. The Iciiriicd ( ounnel cniitcndvd thnt the justification of the Defendanti' con- duct niiKhl be collcctfd from the I'hiintifl' hinuelf; from the palpable grounds iif del'eiire which he hiiiiKcIf hnJ unconkciously furnished in evidence. That al- thuuch the IMnintiH' Imd iiijoyed every advantaijc in the maturing and prepaia- tioii of hii case, and the nmrc odious features which had shocked and revolted the public mind in the course of the former trials had been softened or concealed, and all uiifivourablc circumstances endeavoured to be explained away ; yet lliat the facts, lis they were even now submitted, were little calculated to reflect cre- dit upon the PlaintiflT, or to enlist the sympathies of the Jury in his behalf, and when taken u connection with the evidence which the Defendants had it in their power tu adduce, would show how slender were the Plaintiff's pretensioni to appropriate to himself any share of the eulogiunis which had been so lavishly bestowed. That the case submitted to the consideration of the Court and Jury, Was not that of a ycmiig man in the dawn and morning of his days, whose pros- pects had been l)li;;lit('(l by the mistaken rigour or relentless cruelty of a credi- tor ; it was that of a delitor seeking to derive a benefit from his own misconduct. That from the case as disclosed by the Plaintiff, it was manifest that at the time of en'ectiing the purchase of the hats in question his credit was prostrated ; and that he laboured under an inability to meet his cngHgements, That the purchase wa'« evidently made at a time when no necessity dictated ; and was to an amount unjustilied either by the means nf the Plaintiff, or the extent of the business in which he was engaged. That the purchase was not one dictated by necessity ; neither could it have been made with reference to the pretended wholesale bu- siness of the ensuing spring . for it cuuld not have escaped the attention of the Plaintifi', that the contemplated importati''i <. articles of a similar description, to the extent of .€1000 or .£l.'iUO, would materially diminish the advantages of the purchase, and reduce the profits which mi, ht otherwise have been calcula- ted upon. That the PlaititilV, while in a state of acknowledged insolvency, had been guilty of bestowing preferences — that he had dischaiged debts of long stand- ing by surrendering a part of the Defendant's goods — that this was almost imme- diately afterwards followed by a disposal of his entire stock at cost prices — a sale justified by no exigency ; prompted by no decently plausible motive ; and which comprehended articles of indispensable necessity, even in the new and more extensive business in which the Plaintiff professed it to have been his in- tention to engage. That it evinced a reckless contempt on the part of the Flai:. ff, for the understandings of the Jury, gravely to contend that he had it in coiitemplation to pay for the goods purchased from the Defendants, by nieani; of his spring importations. The few of the notes obtained from Bridp:' , which, under any circumstances, were susceptible of being employed in tht purcii. sr of exchange, had been given to creditors hf . , — and no reniittancf,, I\o'.ve" >. •■■ large, could have overcome physical impediments and enabled the > '»>ii<^ i** to introduce into this Province in the month of May, goods which could uoi be ex- pected to leave England till the middle of April. That a comparison of the FlaintifTs means with his debts betrayed an utter inability to embark in a whole- mle business, or to establish a credit in England ; or to make those remittances by t'-hich i^loKC the credit of the preceding season could be extended or confirm- ed. That one fp.ct, admitted on all hands, was conclusive : namely, that none of the creditors u- d hteu paid up to the present hour. That it betrayed an un- eiainpled li-nrdih-xiv.' :i thr oart of t'' : Plaintiff, under all the circumttancei of the easel and pi'uf furnianc taliuDk ' lion ; "I dischark That! tlic Delf The which NovemI dants nl the othi Plainli| 1S30. otherwl nicdiat -m M m % . -^aT~ *^^B«^.. -| — 23 (of the Plain, jjo iuipicion. attachment "KBinit th« juct-of the |"»nify might (» f'ecliiigH of •"Kcly by hii pdanti con- ''e K'ouiidi 1'hat al. '•^ P'"«'|»aia- itl levolted concealed, ' ; yet that reflect ere. ehalf, and had it in '■etensioni »o lavinhly and Jury, '•ose j)io«. f a credi- isconduct. t the time »ted ; and '■ purchase m amount usiness in leccssity ; eiale bu. J" of the sciiption, ntages of ' culcula- ncr. had ig stand . St inime. '—a sale d which d more his in. "f the e had it ' nieans vhLh, Jixii.jRr o^^•»< ( ,- ,t/r to I'e ex. of the tvhole. tances nfirni> t none m un. CM of :l the caie, to place hit prctenxiun* to damaKct on the Kcore of lou of charactci and pruatratidii of credit. Iliicaxi wuk one uf lofty ' luuiioe, but of koiail per- formance, it wa« one of intention* which were ucvo •ciuniplihbed ; of eipcc* taliouk whicli wen- never fulfilled ; of a credit which i ttd |iuivly in iiiiu^ina- tion ; of runiiltaiiceit which were never made ; uiid uf debts wjiicb were never dikchar^ed. Thatkuch WHk the cake at khadowed forth by the I' ,\'r tiff. U wunti' be for iltii Dvfcndantk to complete the outline, and to (ill up Uit- piclure. 'I'he learned Couukel then entered into the pui icuUnt of (I truiisacti«n« which preceded the ihkuiiiK of the writ of cnpiim. i lie PlHiiititl, m, the WHh November, IV2'J, clVt:cted a purchukC of hat« in the pucliii;(<; from the bit«/r danti to the amount of i:;i47 2 4, payable, one hitif (i:i7;i 11 2; at four, and the other half at hit monthk' credit; for which the Defendjiiit accepted tbe PlainlillS no'ck, |m.viible rekpectively on the Ikt of April and the Ut of June, IHSO. The PIviiitiiV wa> personally a ktraii;;er to the DefeiiduntH. He wmh nu otherwise knoi' .; lo 'luni than as the occupant ofakinall retail klore in their iut< mediate V' ''; - anJ that but kcantily furnii:nct, jerhups, would have dictated the latter course ; but the Plaint. I ' w • rutjcr to ubtaiii possession uf the whole. He infurmed tbe Del'en« diiiits that 1. ei|uired the goods for his spriii); retail trade; that iie would be III' ))'e tueitett s.iles to any extent before the spring ; that he had nu other .;i ans of pavini; for the goodx than from the proceeds of their sale ; and, in con- gequcnce he stipulated for a credit beyond the usual period, and ruiining far into the spring ind summer months ; at which time oiily,as he repeatedly and urgent- ly endeavoured to impress u|ion the Defendants, could he tie enabled to provide for their notes. The Plaintitf succeeded in conciliating the contidence of the Defendants, who yielded to his representations in the honest confidence of an unsuspicious nature ; and granted to him an unusual term of credit upon his own personal security. The purchase was a decidedly advantageous one for the Plaintifl'— the hats had been laid in on the most favourable terms ; and were sold to the Plaintitr at a heavy reduction upon the invoice, and ut unusually low prices. The Defendants, it was to be observed, had no security for the payment of their debt, save the honor and integrity of the Plaintiflf; but they relied up. on his assurances ; and the proximity of his shop would enable them to overlook the PlaintiflT's conduct, and to provide from time to time for their own security. The Defendants had no reason to suppose that it was the intention of the Plain, tifi'to dispose of the hats otherwise than by retail, or in the usual course of deaU ing. No allusion was had to the pretended wholesale business, of which the Jury had heard so much ; although, if credit could be attached to the witness Field, the Plaintiff had matured his intentions in that respect as early as the preceding winter. The learned gentleman added that it was his duty to lay a peculiar stress upon this circumstance, as the facts which would be declared iu evidence on the part of the Defendants, would place it beyond a doubt that the Plaintiff even then meditated the fraud which he was soon after prompted to commit. The property was conveyed to the Plaintiff's premises , apart was opened and exposed to sale upon his shelves ; the concerns of the Plaintiff were enabled to assume a more imposing attitude ; and his shop, which the Defendants and their clerks had occasion lo pass dally, if not hourly, offered to their eyes every iniication of an increasing retail business, arising from the means thus gen- erously placed at his disposal by the Defendants. The latter reposed in this state of fancied security until towards the close of the January following; when their misplaced confidence in the honor and integrity of the Plaintiff, was for the first time distuibed, by information communicated to them by a Mr. Vaughan, to the effect that the Plaintiff had parted with his shop and sold out his stuck ill trade, for vhich he had been paid by means of negociable notes. That he was engaged in converting these notes into British exchange, apparent- ly with a view to abscond, and that he was in fact about to depart from the Province. Vaughan had dealt wah Bridge. He had also formed a pretty cor- rect esttiuat« of the Pluntiff's concerns ; was aware of bis iavohements ; dis- 'I: l| i' I 24 trusted his intentions, and had refused him credit. This gentlenian had occa* kion several times to notice Bridge engaged about the premises which he suppos. ed to belong to Blanchard, apparently to the neglect of his own concerns. His curiosity was excited. He was a creditor to Bridge to a small amount, and self interest prompted the enquiry. He accosted Bridge at the door of the Plain> tifTs shop, and enquired his motive for being so frequently there. Bridge be- trayed confusion, and after some hesitation, acknowledged that he had purchased from Blanchard the entire of his stock in trade, including the unexpired term of his lease. The difficulty which he had experienced in eliciting this informa- tion created distrust in the mind of Vaughan, which was not diminished when he was made acquainted with the conditions of the sale ; namely, payment by notes at unusually long dates. He insisted on knowing who were the creditors of Blanchard ; he learned that the present Defendants were his principal credi- tors, and that the goods which he had obtained from them, formed no inconsid- erable portion uf the stock thus unacconntably transferred to Bridge. He en- quired if the DclendantK possessed any knowledge of the transaction— he was answered in the negative. He then declared his intention of communicating the circumstances to the Defendants, with the suspicions he had imbibed, in order to place them on their guard against the designs of the PlaintiS*. Britlge intreat- ed Vauf;han not to commit his name io any communication he might make to the Defendants. Mr. Vaughan lost no time in calling upon the Defendants, and prefaced his information by enquiring if they were creditors of Blanchard, and to any and what extent. Satisfied upon this point he,8pontaneously and un- solicited, communicated to them bis suspicions of their debtor's intentions, and unhesitatingly expressed his opinion that the Plaintiff was about immediately to abscond. The Defendants were naturally alarmed and anxious — they elicited from Vau!>hhowever it might be incunibcnt upon the creditor, in the future progress of his case, to lay before the Court llic facts and circumstances to justify the institution of an action bcfuic the difl.l Imd accrued. The Plaintiff was arrested by his body on the ^I'lli day of .January, 1829, and committed tu gaol. His remaining in prison, even lor that brief period of time, was tu be attributed tu the expectation of exciting the sympathy of some future Jury on his behalf, and not to any inability of procuring his enlargement upon bail ; for be was, at that time, in the posiession of the means which he after- wards placed at the disposal of ikgg und Itrown. There were reasons why the pruceeding by aijnnt was reported to, upon this particular occasion, in preference to the remedy by nn attachment of the per- sonal property of the debtor, upon a prcnumptiuii (if his intention to secrete his estate, debts, and effects, with an intent to deliaiid his creditors. There, in fact, existed no personal property wliich the process of the Court could attach. The time which had elapsed dit^ubled the (.ridilois from following that portion of their property which had passtl into the Imndt of Kagg ; and the transaclioa with Bridge, for which an osteiihibly vaiuulilr: ciiiisidcration had been given, effectually protected the remainder of the PlMintifl'* iffectft. 'J'here existed no means of procuring intermediate security ; the I'lmntiff evaded all enquiry ; and, secure in the possession of the notes whii;h iic had taken, unbluthingly iported with the feelings and interests of his creditors. The Counsel for the Plaintiff were correct in stating that the action of the creditors was disiaisscd by the Court ; but they bad not treated it fairly in tt«t> ins the %i that the «L prompted! grity werj debtor, a# to explaiij the debt! roanifestj which tlij a debt, r equivoca The II tensions! of the ff that ocd the pre! eel a c( which \ rightly, roost V But th sion, w viduftl gonis>t allhou 1 never % nmi niisco Th afisig< avowi all tV they chtts ceal pow the prit doi otli by ac in Bt b '1 I I'or the £nt I intention of fo him ; that loured; that fviduaJf who f of some of Niable paper l»t» with Mr. I on the part [good inteo- Jection with I before act- [ht to obtain '""'n to re. Bridge, to "-'•e the re- his proposal additional and six, ta "."d to run. ■tiff and hii there must *« to inter- It means of f meditated that paper [progress to h of other "»ed a pro. >n affidavit >y » recent fned: had that the ice. Tho no stigma or, in the ux'staocei IS2.9,and J of time, "e future ent upon lie after- Pon thii he per- ■ete hia lierc, in attach, portion sactioa K'ven, ted no ; and, ported of the iiteU 37 ing the grounds of dismiiial, M they were Msigned by the Court. The Court felt that the cirounistaaces offered in evidence by the creditors, by whatever motivei prompted, afforded strong presumption of fradulent intention. Candour and inte. grity were the basis of confidence among mercantile men. The conduct of the debtor, and the concealment practised, was not in the usual course : it became him to explain hit conduct to his creditor ; but the Court saw no ground to be satisfied the debtor was immediately about to leave the Province. The Defendants had manifestly acted under a conscientious belief of the existence of the intention which they imputed to their debtor ; but to support an action for the recovery oC a debt, months before the term of credit would expire, required direct and un- equivocal proof of an intention to abbcund. The learned gentleman contended that no inference unfavourable to the pre- tensions nf hi:> clients (the Defendants) was to be collected from the dismissal of the first action. The pretensions which the Court refused to sanction upon that occasion, were altogether different from those which were put in issue by the present proceeding. In the one case the Defendants were seeking to can« eel a contract deliberately entered into ; to justify the breach of an engagement which foriiied a law and rule of action for the parties. The Court, perhaps rightly, felt that a demand of that nature should be supported by evidence of the most unquestionable description ; that nothing should be left to conjectui-e. But the evidence which might not apply in suppDCt of the creditor's preten- sion, would be effectual for his defence. Justice would not support an indi- vidual in the prosecution of a right, where the error or misconduct of his anta- gonist was to be attributed to his own fraud. The case of the Defendants, although perhaps within the letter, was not within the spirit of the law; for it never could be the intention of the Legislature to sanction the principle, that a man should be allowed to reap a benefit from his own wrong, or from the misconception which his conduct was designedly calculated to foster. The Defendants, in an action of this description, were undoubtedly bound to assign the reasons of their suspicion. They were unable to establish any explicit avowal of intention on the part »f their debtor to abscond ; but they relied upon all the circumstances, as affording a justifiable ground for the proceedings which they had adopted. The fraudulent representations which had preceded the pur- chase ; the now notorious insolvency ; the clandestine disposal ; and the con- cealment practised towards the creditors, must have been prompted by some powerful motive. The circumstances would enable the Jury to judge how far the Plaintiff had acted in the spirit of the law which he invoked, and the principles upon which he rested his appeal to their sense of justice. The insolvency of the Plaintiff", at the time of the purchase, was beyond a doubt. The law contemplated the interest of creditors as well as debtors. In other communities than this, it was held to be in vain to think of detecting fraud by the evidence of the parties immediately concerned ; and the Legislature had accordingly directed its attention to the establishment of certain criteria of insolvency, calculated to place the creditor upmi his guard. What should con- stitute a legal act of bankruptcy had been well ilufiiied in other countries. Daily cx|)erience had shewn that men commonly became bankrupts, iung before they were known or suspected to be so. It was on the eve of a declin- ing credit, that the debtor was most commonly prompted to the commis- sion of the acts by which the interest of his creditors was impaired. The proof of a fraudulent design was at all times a matter of extreme difficulty; and a sense of the hopeless nature of the attempt, had in England, and in other countries, given to Bankruptcy a retrospective effect. It was undoubtedly true that in this Province, as well as in other countries, where the interests of creditors were protected by ably digested systems of Bankrupt Law, the principle was recognized, that from the moment of insolvency the debtor ceased to have the right of efScient controul ; the inadequate estate be- came the common property of the creditors ; and alienations in favour of parti- cular creditors were uniformly discountenanced as a fraud upon those who suffer. But in this country commerce was subjected to great and serious inconveniences from the defect of the loonl jui-nprudence, and the absence of Mine provinou m i) K tDKbling creditors to unite together for the general beneflt. There existed no means of procuring security otherwise than by the judgment of a Court, with all the delays incident to legal proceeedings. The consequence was, lliat in al- most every case of insolvency which occurred, preferences were found to have been bestowed upon favourite creditors. An instructive example was to be fu nd in the case of the Plaintiff here. A creditor of long standing, (Mr. Bagg,) is protected by the surrender of a large portion of the debtor's effects ; the suspi- cious character of the transaction was enhanced by the ciicumstances which at- tended it. Delivery of goods in payment was, in almost every instance, obnox- ious to suspicion. It was not to be denied that a debtor was bound to discharge his obligations,and the creditor to receive payment ; but every authority went to the effect, that if the payment were made or received, under circumstances which indicated an advantage over other creditors, it was to be regarded as fraudulent. " Payment of a debt in the ordinary course would not excite sus- picion ; but when instead of payment security was given, suspicions of the debt- or's intentions might be justly excited." The learned Counsel further contended that the purchase from the Defeadants was made in immediate prospect of bankruptcy, or at least with a view to enable the Plaintiff to discharge other debts of long standing by means of the Defendants' goods. Upon either supposition the conduct of the Plaintiff was indefensible ; it was a deceit upon the Defendants, which bound him in common honesty to restore the goods ; but the must revolting feature of the transaction was the clandestine disposal by wholesale, eilmoit immediately after the purchase, and out of the usual course. Taking all the circumstances in connection with each other, it would baffle human ingenuity to suppose a case more justly obnox- ious to suspicion. The purchase was made on the 30th November ; the note* granted by UriUge were dated as of the 2Uh of December, The sale to Uridge could not be the work of an hour, or a day, or even of a week. Much time must have been consumed in the previous negotiation ; some delay must liave oc- curred in the adjusting the terms of the purchase; and more than one day, at least, in the preparation and perfecting of the lengthy inventory attached to the deed of conveyance. Could the Jury then, for a moment, hesitate to ex- press their conviction that this was a transaction contemplated by the Plaintiff, when he obtained the Defendants' goods ? Could the Plaintiff deny that the purchase was made without any view of paying the price ? The sale included the Defendants' hats at cost price, and was studiously con- cealed. The puvcbase, both as to price, and to term of credit, was a decidedly advantageous one. The Plaintiff, by adhering to his original represenlion, and vending the property by retail, might have cleared from 40 to 50 per cent, upon the sales. This was no imaginary advantage ; the witness Bagg admitted that 25 per cent, might have been obtained. Other witnesses, equally competent to form an opinion, would double the estimate. The Plaintiff, without any ostensible motive, was tlius shown to have relinquished a certain profit, to the extent of at least £150 upon his purchase ; an advantage for which the pretend- ed wholesale business of the following spring could have offered no equivalent. £very rule and principle of mercantile dealing was opposed to a sale of this description, from a reason far from inapplicable to the present case ; that to permit a debtor, in a state of insolvency, to dispose of his effects privately, even for a just price, was holding out a temptation to defraud his creditors, by the op- portunity atlurded to him of absconding with the proceeds. But the pretended wholesale business was, in fact, the creation of a luxuriant imagination. A wholesale hatter was unknown to this Province, in the usual acceptation of the term. The largest dealer in that description of property, blended the retail with the wholesale. The sale to Bridge, included every thing which might have sufficed for the wholesale. The shop itself was surrendered ; yet it was amply adequate for all the purposes of the new business ; and, it would be shewn in evidence, that the E'laintiff, but a short time previously, had fitted up a part of the premises, with a view to the retail business of the ensuing spring. Alorcover, the quality of hats obtained from the Defendants, added to his former stock, was more than adequate to any business in which the Plaintiff could vfitb ptud lets for all mitunces dcrs to K; contrudic The 8^1 proachini being at roent. vance se the cred' into neg explanal The su;' adoptini the Uef principi term, l- applictt ducted quishn gtt\ pre of fra> ences ThJ descri two V a rem to be intro tagec secui they wen deri offe Me ed the \ col ha br til T tl 1 c :J; S i > I Jeiisted na i"»<^t, with ["'at in ai- M to 'iHve I" be fo.iid '^agg.) is fit! siispi. whicJi Bt- |ce, obiiox- discharge |ty vvent to funistancest Sarded as Incite sus- t'le debt- •efcBdants a view to ns of the iintift' Was » coimnoii Imnsaction I'uichase, -tion with tly obnox, the note* to Bridge [time must have oc- day, at attached ate to cx- i'Jaintiff, ' that the usiy con- ecidedly •on, and It- upon ted that inpetent 'ut any > to the letend- valent. o( this bat to » even lie op- ended '• A f the letaii •light was 1 be J up •ing. nier >uld 29 with prudence engage. The notes obtained Tioin Bridge, were utterly worth, less for all the purposes of Exchange. No Exchange bad been bought, or re. mittances made, at the time of the arrest ; and the season for traiisniiiilng or- ders to i<^.ngland bad been allowed to pass away. These facts give an emphatic contradiction to the Plaintiff's pretensions. The sale to Bridge was nut in the ordinary course of business ; nothing ap. proaching to adequate security had been obtained ; the notes given by Uiidge, being at extremely distant dates, could hardly be regarded in tlie light uf a pay- ment. The transaction bore the aspect of a temporary expedient ; uf a coiitri. vance set on foot to cover the Flaintifl's efl'tcts ; a sale without the consent uf the creditor, and concealed from him ; and the conversion of the debtor's means into negotiable securities, and these too at unusual dates, without n syllable of explanation, were to be regarded as indications of an intention to abscond. The suspicions of the creditor were mure than justilied. To have paused in adopting the course suggested would have been a breach of duty on the part of the Defendants, who as factors, were bound to watch over the interests of their principal. The case was not one of fniud in the common acceptation of the term, but of mercantile fraud. In cverv country there were peculiar principles applicable to those who lived by buying and selling, whose business was con- ducted by means of extensive credits. Absence from home, or sudden relin. quishment of trade are considered so far conclusive of intentions as to justify le- gal proceedings. The transaction throughout was replete with the characteristics of fraud. False representations ; purchases on the eve of insolvency ; piefer- ences bestowed ; fraudulent alienations and concealment. The learnedCounsel in commenting upon the evidence ufthe different witnesses, described the case as one gotten up by the Plaintid'himself. The impressions nf the two witnesses Bagg, were avowedly derived from the representulionsof Bhincliurd; a remark applicable to all the other evidence adduced. (.)fthe .Messrs. IJagg it ought to be observed that they stood in a peculiar relation towards the PlaintilV; they liad introduced him to business : the transaction which had terminated so disadvuii- tageously fur the Defendants, had proved highly beneficial to them ; they had secured the i)ayment of their own debt by means of the Defendants' goods ; they were in some degree identified with the PlaintiH in the transaction, and were naturally interested to exculpate themselves fvom any imputation of having derived an unwarrantable advantage over the other creditors of the Plaintifl", by oQ'ering a plausible expla'natiun of his conduct. The assistance extended by the Messrs. Uagg to iilanchard when the latter first engaged in business, was dictat- ed by self-interest ; it also consisted of the stock of an establishment broken up; they also had the security of the visible stock, which they turned to better ac- count than tilt: Defendants. Mr. Abncr Bagg is forced to admit that the hats had been ufi'ercd to him and declined, as being tuo high priced ; yet in the same breath he professes to have entertained a feeling of indignation towards the Plain- tiff for having afterwards stepped in and appropriated the bargain to himself. The Jury were bound to reuiaik that he. had examined the hats in company vith the Plaintiff ; that in the hearing of the latter he had declined the purchase. He must have surmised the iuteiitiuns of Ulanchard, and he had therefore no cause of complaint. There was an absence of vraiaemblance in this part of the story. Ulanchard, lie says, ufl'crtd him half on the same terms ; less the debt due to Le lloy and tompany. J)id Uagg require the hats to complete the assortment of Lc Roy and (umpany, or was it his object to seeure his debt ? Circumstances vvent to confirm the latter conjecture. Le Roy and Company had no occasion for tlie hats ; they broke up their establishment in the following month of March ; and the intended relinquikhment of the trade must have been in the contemplation of Mr. Hagg some time before. The purchase then, if made in good faith, must have been a disadvantageous one. IVlr. Bagg thought that some time in December J 82!), he wa& consulted about the sale to Bridge. Was this confidence voluntary, or extorted when his own suspicions were awak- ened, and he obtained from Blanchard the surrender of half his purchase ? He admitted that the Plaiiitifl's credit was doubtful in the month of January 18S0, in consequent of his suQ'ering small demands to stand over. Wai conduat like I so II I thin on the part of a trader, a passpuit to credit either at botne or abroad .' Wa* it IcsK easy tu accompIi^h a large English remittance than to discharge a small dcniiiiid '' Blanchard vra% endeavouring to convert the notes into Exchange. Uotv uiuld such notes procure Exchanf;r. Blanchard asked him how he should remit ; be al&u consulted Cunipbeli his clerk. The intended wholesale dealer WHS so thoroughly ignorant ut' the business in which he was about to engage, that he enlisted the services of a Mr. Lalanne to prepare his ordei°s, and consulted a clerk in the employ of the Messrs. Uagj^, as to the manner in nhich remittances should be made. The witness was of opinion that if ibc Oefendaiits hid not ariested Blanchard, the latter might have provided lor the lir>t noic ; the spring importations would have paid the other. The evidence tlirou;;hout consisted of nothinu; but hearsay and conjectures; of pos- sibilities to the exclusion uf probabilities ; of delusions to which no rational person could subscribe. The virtue which the Plaintifl" and his witnesses attri- buted to the ifs and bttts, which had been so plentifully introduced in aid of the conjectures olVered to supply the absence of facts, was wonderful. Fortified with these little adjuncts, the Plaiutift' rioted in imaginary opulence, and in- dulged in his visionary expectations. 1/ the notes of IJridge had not been ut- terly worthless, HinnchHnl might have procured Exchange. // Exchange had been procured, he might have remitted to England. 7/ the remittances had reached fc'.ni^iaiid in time, he might have obtained a further credit, //"the con- templated importation had reached this Province, he might have been in funds to meet the claims o\' his creditors. If Bridge had not failed, he might have had something to show to his creditors. Was the case of an individual seeking a compensation in damages to the extent of ^.'JOOO, for an alleged in- jury to his character and credit, ever before presented under such auspices, or exhibited under such colours? Mr. Abncr Bagg had informed the .)ury, that the Pliiintifl' had sufl'ered in consequence of Bridge's failure. The result had shewn Uridge to have been also unworthy of credit. lie failed some months after his pretended purchase ; he was a declared bankrupt in the autumn of IbSO. The evidence of the witness Field, was no otherwise material than as he de- clared that Biancliaid, as early as the month of January, 1829, and many months anterior to the purchase from the Defendants, spoke of a wholesale bu. siness, and predicated upon the credit he had secured. The representations, then, which had been made to the Defendants, were shown to be false, by the avowal of the Plaintifl''s own witnesses. The witness professed to be of opinion, that if Blanchard had continued in business, with the credit he possessed, he might have negotiated Bridge's notes, and procured Exchange. The credit was already disposed of ; but the absence of this material feature was compen- sated by something altogether novel and unexpected : tlie negotiable character of Bridge's paper, and its applicability to the purposes of Exchange. If F.X- change, not of the most worthless description, Was to be procured in the mar- ket by means such as had been suggested by this witness, and the other wit- nesses, Campbell and Brown; if circuitous transactions of the character aHuded to, were a matter of common occurrence, the Province ought justly to forfeit its character with the rest of the commercial world. Who had ever heard of converting £100 of dubious paper into a moiety of the amount, and applying that moiety to the purchase of Exchange ? Had the Plaintifl" done so in this particular instance, the whole of the notes obtained from Bridge must have been deposited as collateral security, to obtain i!200 for remittance to England— and where would have been the creditors here ? Of the evidence of Mr. Stanley Bagg, one part was eminently calculated to arrest the attention of the Jury. lie stated that the closing of his transac- tions with Blanchard, by means of a surrender of a portion of the Defendants' bats, in discharge of the debt due by Blanchard, appeared by the books to have taken place on the 9Sd of December — closed at the suspicious moment, when Blanchard was about closing with Bridge. The witness had heard of the trans- action with Bridge, but was not consulted. Was it this that prompted him to •ecure bis debt f 31 many The evidence of ISruwn, suggeited an important coniiideration. He bccHiiie bail for the Pkintifl' on the titrciintb of the fiuidii placed in hit handi>, to the eitent of about d'Hri, includiu); a considerable portion of the paper olituined from Bridge. He was put iu possession of the whole of the Plaintifl's means. ^Vhat then had become of the notes granted by Bagg for the balttiice of the hats transferred to him in December, and which had been so tiiumphHiitly held out by the PlaiiitiQ's Counsel) as aU'ording to him a means of meeting hib en- gagements towards the Defendants ? To what purpose had they been applied ? Had they bought Exchnngc ? Where was the proof of it ? Where svas the Exchange ?— or had tliey uKo been applied, to appease the importunities of cla- morous creditors i* What had become of the proceeds of the English importa- tion of the preceding sjiiimer ? Had they been applied iu leductiuti of the debt to Kagg and Wait i* The Plaintiff h'ld ascribed to the Defendants, an intention of appealing to in. formation supposed to have been afforded by Mr. Peter H. Teulon, in corro. boration of that obtained from Vaughan, iu justification of the arrest ; and he had, accordingly introduced that gentleman, for the purpose of disproving the justice of the inference which the Defundanls were supposed to have drawn from his communication. The stratagem had recoiled upon its author. The evidence of Teulon could not shake the case for the Defendants. He was also a creditor of the Plaintiff — he was, moreover, a friend; he also heard of the sale to Bridge by accident ; he also deemed it an extremely suspicious circuni. stance, and felt alarmed for his debt of £25. He calUd upon Plaintifl', and extorted from him an avowal of the circumstances, He had the advantage of an interview and explanation with the Plaintift', who satisfied him. He after- wards conversed with the Defendants, M'ho communicated to him the substance of what had been stated by \faughan, and asked his opinion His opinion was, that Blanchard was not about to Itave the Province. Was this opinion predi- cated upon a conviction of the integrity of the Plaintiff — the sincerity of his intentions — or the extent of his means ? Did he express himself respect- ing Blanchard in the language of panegyric ? By no means. He ap. peared to have acquiesced in all which the Defendants stated of the fraud and misconduct of their debtor ; he fanned the ffame of their resentment ; he expressed his opinion that the remedy of the Defendants under all the circum- stances was by prosecution for obtaining goods under false pretences ; and he only distrusted the intention of the Plaintiff to abscond, as attributed to him by the Defendants, because the notes which he had taken from Bridge were at long dates, and could not be readily negotiated in a foreign country. The in- ference was obvious. The Defendants were aware that the Plaintiff was strain- ing every nerve to convert these notes into British exchan;;e. Had he succeeded, Teulon himself would have acquiesced in the justice of their suspicions. The witness betrayed some correct feeling upon this occasion ; he felt for the situa- tion in which a too generous conlidence had placed the Defendants, and sought to obtain an interview with the Plaintiff, with a view of prevailing- upon him to relinquish to the Defendants the notes he had obtained fiom Bridge, His ef- forts were ineffectual. The evidence of the witness was valuable as respected the period when hats could be sold to the most advantage, and the time when English remittances should be made. January, Febiuaiy, and March were de- cidedly unfavourable months for the sale of that description of property ; and English reniittniices with a view to spring importations, would accomplish nothing if not sent forward by the early part of January. What conid the Defendant expect to accomplish by .eniittances leaving Canada in the month of February ? Still the circumstances suggested the enquiry, where was the exchange which was to huve been remitted, or to whom was application to cbtain it made ? Upon neither uf these points had the Plaintiff deigned to offer any explanation to the Jury. The learned gentleman here took up the assignment from Blanchard to Bridge, and contended that a bare enumeration of the notes which were given, with the amounts and periods of their payments respectively, would shew the utter inap- plicability of this paper to any useful purpose. He also cead and cowmented I • la I .-t S2 upon n part of the coriespondeiice between the PltiintifT aud the house at Coln« ill Eugland, which hctrityed u dissatisfaction on the part of the Knglith corre*- poiident with the manner in which the Flaintift' had met their applications for remittances in discharge of the debt previously contracted. That it was under all these circumstances that the Defendant Smith, in the exercise of his human, and therefore fallible, judgment, had come to the con- clusion that the conduct of his debtor was irreconcileable with any other than an intention to abscond ; and acting upon the information communicated by Vaughan, upon his own moral convictions, upon the suggestions of persons wholly disinterested, and u|)on the opinion of his professional adviser, had taken an oath in the form prescribed by law, to the effect " that he had been credibly in- formed, had reason to believe and did conscientiously believe that the Plain- tiff, hif debtor, ivus about to depart the Province." That no imputation of deliberate malice could attach to the Defendants ; there were moral considerations to exclude any such presumption. Their con- duct in the lirst instance had been marked by a spontaneous and unusual libe- rality ; the property which they had confided to the Plaintiff was not their own ; it belonged to a principal in England ; they were not acting under a guarantee^ or del credere commission ; they were aware that in the event of loss the con- sei)uciices would attach to the foreign consignor ; they did not act until unsought for inl'oiinatioii was obtained. The act of arrest was in itself prejudicial to their interests, and those of their principal, on whose behalf they were acting. For the remedy adopted was one which nothing butan apprehension of total loss could have dictated. That the Defendants must be supposed to cherish gain prefer- able to loss ; and they could have anticipated no advantage from the arrest of their debtor, under all the circumstances which had been disclosed, beyond that of providing against his evasion, imprisonment for debt was not to be viewed in the light of a punishment ; its object was to coerce the debtor to payment by means of concealed property which the creditor was unable to reach. Could it be denied that the Defendants had been forced to the adoption of this alter- naiivc ? The learned Counsel here entered into an examination of the supposed means of the debtor as contrasted with his acknowledged engagements; from whence the Jury were bound to infer an insolvency beyond all hope of revival. At the time of the purchase from the Defendants, he stood indebted to Miller, Fisher & Co. in a suni exceeding Jt.iO ; to Hough in £,\2 or £14 ; to Bagg in £7b ; to Macnidcr in Ml-i ; to Teulon in £'23 ; to the mechanic who had been employed in fitting up his premises, in j[^14. He was bound to remit to England, in cur. rency, to the extent of £'220 ; the debt which he had contracted in favor of the Defejidants was £347 ; and all this exclusively of other debts of which the creditors could derive no knowledge. To meet all this amount of engagements the Plaintitl', it would appear, had nothing beyond the notes obtained from Bagg and the worthless paper of Bridge. The notes granted by Bagg had not been accounted for; the better portion of Bridge's notes had been yielded to the importunities of Fisher & Co. and of Hough. There remained not wherewith to purchase exchange, or to provide for the Defendants. The learned gentleman concluded by directing the attention of the Court and Jury to the combination of circumstances, which in his judgment ought to weigh with the Jury in pronouncing an opinion of the Plaintiff's pretensions. The circumstances under which the Plaintiff had introduced himself to the Defen- dants — the false and fraudulent representations which preceded the purchase — its unnecessarily large amount — the advantages which might have flowed to the Plaintiff from an adherence to the terms of the purchase — the probable profits — the surrender of a moiety of the purchase to Bagg; the terms, time, and conditions — the sale to Bridge; the terms, time, and conditions— the number and character of the notes which were given in payment — the concealment practised — the purposes to which many of those notes were applied— the pur. poses to which the Plaintiff had it in contemplation to apply the remainder — and the preposterous story of a wholesale business by means of spring importa- tions, based upon a credit more than dubious. Dcr 33 b would b* for tb* Jury U dctcrmio* the ciwrMtcr of tht Plaiutiff** pr«- twuiouii. Mr. Lafontiinu tbca addressed the Jury in the French language Tor the Dcfundanlii. The evidence of Li'man Vauohan, as taken by Tittue of a Ccmwiission Rognloirc, ul New York, on the 2i'd SLiitcnibcr, 1B2S, was read, tu the fol- lowiuy iflVct : I uiii a lii'oker ; I know all the piutics in thrs suit. I know nothing of the purchase of huts l>y the Pliiiiit.trri-oni the DelViKlants, except IVuni hearsay. Ue- /orc the i'liiintitr was arrested l>y the Dtlciiilants, I heard thiit his paper had bei-n dishonoured, and I considered liis credit doubtful. I hhould not imve|;iT- en him credit. In fact I have denied huviiif; (roods when he has applied to buy of uie, for fear lie should ask nic to trust him. I have refused to (iive him cre- dit. 1 thouj^ht him eniiiarrassed, and heard others express the same o|)ii)ion. I thought his credit bud. When I heard of Ulaixhard's purchase from befeu- dunts I was surprised. 1 fust heard of the tranHfcr to liriiljre from the latter, and from the niaiiner in which he represented the sale to have taken place, I considered it a clandestine transaction, lirid^^e iiifurmed nie that the payment for the stock in trade of the Plaintiif was made in bis iiet^otialile notes, some of which he had used to pay a debt to one Uagj;, and that Uianchard was cndca' voiiring to obtain foreign JLxchange with the remainder. I then asked Bridge who were Ulanchard's creditors, and he nienlioned Smith & Lindsay as being the principal. This conversation took place in the Flaintitf's shop. I then went to Mr. Smith, and made hiiu acquainted with this conversation, and expressed my opinion that the Defendants would never recover their debt from the Plain- titt'. 1 mentioned the same conversation, and expressed the same o]>inion to Mr. Hou^h, another creditor of the PlaintilT, and advised him to secure his debt if possible. The PlaintiQ' was always, I believe, engaged in a retail business, and was not supposed to be possessed of means adcqaate to a wholesale concern. The months of December. January, February and March are not favourable to thesale of hats by retail. I knew Daniel Uiidge ; 1 think I have lent him small sums of money. 1 had no thorough insight into his business. AJy knowledge of the sale to Bridge arose from Bridge's information. 1 had no diiliculty in elicit- ing fioni Bridge the particulars of the transaction. I expressed my intention of communicating what I had heard to the Defendants, when Bridge appeared un- willing that I shonid do so, and seemed to regret that he had told me of the af- fair. I told Mr. Smith from what I had seen and heard, that it was my decided opinion that the Plaintift' intended to leave the Province. I asked Smith if he had not been apprized of the sale by any one else— he told me he was utterly ignorant of it, and seemed much surprised. I told the Defendant that my opi- nion proceeded npon what 1 had heard Ironi Bridge, but from no other source, I gave the same information to Mr. Hough, and recommended him to get one of Bridne's notes. To this Mr. Hough replied that he would have to give the dif- ference between the amount of his claim and tlrit of the note, which I advised him to do. On this occasion 1 informed Mr. Hough that I had just been to Mr. Smith to put him on his guard, and 1 acquainted him with all the conversation that had passed between me and Bridge. 1 believe Hough acted upon my infor- mation and advice, and thereby secured his debt. It was the roiivittion on my mind that the PlaintilV intended to abscond from the Province with an intent to defraud his creditors, and I called upon Smith and Hough with a view of im- pressing upon their minds a belief of such being U»c intention of fhc Plaintiff; and, as 1 believe, I did so impress theui. To the cioss-interrogatories the witness answered ; I had no means of judging of the Plaintifl "s manner of trading, otherwise than from appearance and gen- eral report 1 have no recollection of beipg in the Plaintiff's shop previous to his sale to Bridge. I have no rccollectiou that Bridge ever expres.ed to nie a luipicion that the Plaintiff intended to leave the Province, or otherwise to de- fraud hit creditors. It was from luy couvenatieu with Bridge, oonneeted with \ i \ S4 :i thaitatt of the PlaiotifT's credit at that time, that I formed theopiaion thath* was ubout to leave the Province, and from no other circumstancei. I have never been ca terms of dose intimacy or friendship with either of the Defendants. The cxnminatiou of Mr. Vauchan having been read, Mr. ^VALKRR then called — 'J he Ilonoiablc Mr. Gates, who deposed to this effect:— I have known Mr. Vau^haii for iiiiiny yciirs— he is now in New York. He was a man in whom I ihouUl place the most perfect confidence, having had a very extended businest with him. I should have reposed implicit confidence in any communication in matters of business made to me by Mr. Vaughan. (Mr. Gatks here inspected copies of the notes from Bridge to the Plaintiff, and being asked to state his opinion as to the notes, he said) 1 should not think they were entitled to much credit, from the limited tr.ide and connection of the drawer. 1 am a Director of the Bank of Montreal, and I can say that Mr. Bridge's paper did not possess much CI edit ut that establishment. If exchange could have bt-cn obtained at all, it would have been of a similar description to the notes. To have manufactured goods by the spring arrivals, it is necessary that the order should be sent before the 1st of January; and orders sent in the beginning of B'ebruary for .41500 worth of hats would be entirely too late for the spring arrivals. I have known the Defendants ever since they have been in business, and never heard nnything against the liberality of their dealings— my transac- tions with them have been very extensive. If a retail dealer, without the knowledge of his wholesale creditor who had trusted him in that character on his own personal security, should sell out his entire stock a fortnight uftei having made a purchase to the ainuuot of ;£3G0, I should not think badly of such a transaction, it the sale was entered into to pay me as the seller ; but, if other. wise, I should deem it a very suspicious affair. Exchange at that time of the year (January and February) is generuily scarce ; and in proportion to the scar- city of exchange, so is tiie necessity of most unexceptionable paper. Exchange is generally considered as ecjuivalent to money, and to be purchased by money only. A. person selling out his stock, tools and implements of trade, must neces- sarily incur a very heavy expense, should he commence business anL.'sv. Cross-examined by Mr. Day, Mr. Vaughan was a money broker, dealing in bills and bank r.'.oek. He im- ported French silk, and fancy goods, f;om the L'nited States. I cannot speak as to the general opinion respecting the manner in which Vaughan traded, but i have h'-ard some few surmises that he was a smuggler. 1 cannot say that I have heard this us a general rumour. I had some reason to suppose that Vaughan introduced goods indirectly, and not by the ordinary road. My opinion is not strong enough for nic to say that Vaughan was a smuggler— all 1 have heard on the subjict was rumour. I should have, and do stni have, implicit confidence in Mr Vau^;han ; and the many very extensive and confidential trans- actions 1 have had with him, would induce me to believe any thing he said. My transactions with him, and my opinion founded thereon, were subsequent to any ot these >niiig:fling transuctions imputed to him. It is to the latter period of his residence hore, that my hi^h opinion of him refers. No application was ever made to me to join in a subscription to defray the expences of this defence. Mr. Fh )Ti!iNGiiAM. I have known Vaughan for a long time, and never beard any thing contrary to his high character. I should place confidence in Vau;^han's integrity from his character. For many years I have imported large- ly from England ; and it is an object that orders for importations should be sent home ill November, and beginning of December. No man of sense would send orders in February, if he wanted goods by the spring arrivals. I should not consider the notes (mentioned in the schedule attached to the transfer from the Plaintiff to Bridge,) to be available I'or any mercantile purposes; never hav- ing known any thing of either Blanchard or iiridge. I should not even know what to do with their notes, if they had come under my notice in the way of business. I give credit to retail dealers. It is not a common occurrence for re- tailers to sell out their entire stock, without the knowledge of their wholesale creditors. Au opinion of such a traueaction would entirely depend upon the that ht "K never lants. |ER tben 15 iharacter and reipectabilitjr of tb« retailer. If a debtor of wiafl ware ta aot 10, it wuuld excite niy nuipicinii. €rou-czamined by Mr. I)«y, I have not hud much intcrcouor wilb Viiu(;bnn, and have had very little knowledge of the natun; of lij« tniilr. I have beard thut Vuughan iutroduced goods into the Province, without |myi(n{ the duties. __Ilii credit and character is good. " Mr. Hough. I occupy preniitfi in St. Paul .Street. In the fall of 1829, the PlaintilV bad a ire op|iokita to inr, Ifc wnt ii retail hatter, as fur as I cnuld perceive. lie purchitMil it mimll iiiiidunt of ^nodt from me; from J^IO to £12 worth. I rcmemlifr Mr. Vuunlnri cullini,' 'J|'<>" nie iu the month of Janu- ary IHoO. I waH intinmte with him. II'.' told mc thiit be hud just left the Defendant*' ollice, and narrutid to mc the cirt'uiintunceR of the Plaintiff's sale to Bridge. He told me hi; did nut ihiiik llmt the Defendants would ever be paid; and that hix opinion wun, thiit llliinchuid inlendtd to <■ clear out," at he was employed in coiivfiliiit; Diiilnr'n iioic pay for the bills which he was to give for the hats, by I In; produce of the Imts themselves. On these grounds, Mr. Lindsay granted liim the exiended credit he usked for. Blanchard distinctly said, several times, lliat he. (ould not retail the hats until the spring, and that he wanted them for hi» it|Ming retail trade. It was upon these assur- ances only, that he gill liie huts; und witho il such assurances, he could not have ol lined them. Tin; PlaiiiliirN nppnrent candour seemed to influence IVIr. JLindsay. The Defendunta bad no other security, than the appearance of the hats in the Plaintiff's shop, in thi; way of retail trade. That, and their opinion of his honesty, was their only aerurily. He was on utter stranger to the De- fendants. 1 remember Vuughun uulliiig on the Defendant in .January, 18S0. Vp to that time, Bluneliurd's store continued open, and 1 had occasion to pass it daily, three or four linies, I miw no change in Ihc shop. I saw the hats, which I suppose were tbo^e bought from the Defendants, occupying the shelves. The first intimation the Di;ri:ndant4 had of the sale from the Plaintiff to Bridge, came from Mr. Vaughun, who asked Mr. Smith it he vvas aware that Blanchard had sold oul his stock ; adding, that he was glad that he was no creditor of Blanchard'c He then made sooie remarks, to the effect that Blan- chard WRi about to leave tbc L'rovittce. This wai the substance of what Vaughan .1 36 H* Mud that the Plaintiff had told out to Bridge fur negotiable paper. Mr. Vaughan waii a man in whose reprt-iicntations I ithouid have repused conG. dence ; and on that occasion I placid implicit reliance in what bu spoutane- ouily stated. He had no other business at Deliiindantk' store. I believe he came expressly to acquaint thu Dcl'endunts with the su:>piciuns he entertained of the I'laintiirs intentions. The other traasactiuu that had occurred t>etwcca the Dcl'emUnts and VuUKhnn, related to the sale of a piano. From what Vau^hun stated, I cntciluiiied the impreiision that I'laintiir intended to qnit the Province, and I perceived that Mr Smith had the saute opinion. U could indeed liave hail no other eil'cct. Mr. Jones was Defeudants' proriiihional ad. vi«er ut llmt time. Air. Smith left the olTice with Mr. Vau|;hiin. 1 then told Mr. Suter (vhat hud occurcd, and expicssed to him my opinion upon VHUL;hit[i'j iafiirniution. The huts were sold to the PlaiutitV at a loss of 20 per cent, to the niunulHcturcrs, and tlie sale W'.is consequcatly very advanta* i;eaus to him. Ik- nii^lic have reuli/td a profit of -U) f,tr cent, by retailing them, Jf he had retailed them, he would have cleared i.'l20. It was bis interest to retail !bcm ; and, iudeed, that was the express understanding; upon which they were sold to him. When 1 heard of the sale to lJrid)re, it ex« cited my suspicions of the honesty of the Plaintitt's intentions. If he rei'itsed to hand over the notes which he received from Uridj^u f>ir the bats, I should consider it a great breach of niercautile integrity. 'I'lie Plainiifl' never cume to olTer the notes. I heard Mr. Vaughan say to Mr. Smith, that these very hats were anioiij; those sold to Uridge. Mr. Smith felt gieat reluctaikce in suing out the capias. In conse(|uence of Vaughan's information, Mr. Suter was sent to make inquiries, and Ulanchard came down to the oilicc, but Mr. Smith was not within. This is the ouly iuslaucc of Defeudants' arrestiu^; nnj person. Cross-examined by Mr. D.vY, I have never received any pecuniary accommodations from the Defendants. Mr J.indsay receives money for me, and then iuinds it over to me. It passes til rough his hands, but is under my controul. In the civil action, brought by the present Defendants against tiic PlaintilV, I gave in evidence all that 1 con. lidered important in the cominuaicatioii made by Vaughan to Smith. I persist in the evidence 1 gave in the civil action. The Court here rose. Saturday, Oct. £, 1883. The Court met, pursuant to adjournment. Mr. William Suteh was called, and examined by Mr Walker, I was a clerk in the emi)loy of the Defendants in Jh29 and 1B:J0. They car- ricd on the bu^iness of commission merchants. In the fall of lH2f), they pos. sessed a considerable quantity of hats, consigned to them from England, to be disposed of on co, amissions. They were to receive a commission of 5 per cent. It was not a ■^uuriuitfe coniniission. The guarantee commission, over and above the ordinary commission, is 2] per cent. The Defendants did not guaran- tee the sail! of the goods, and were not responsible to the London house. I re- member well the citcunistanccs connected with the sale of the hats to the Plaintiff. He called on the Defendants about the hats two or three times, ac- companied by Mr. Bagg. I remember one occasion, when the Plaintiff and Bagg came down together, to examine the hats. I did not then understand which (if the two wanted to purchase, but I am certain they can.e together. I was not present at the sale. It umount-^d to jEiidO, at a credit of four and six months— this is the longest, term they ever granted for goods of this description. Blauchurd insisted on being allowed the longer credit, as he wished to retail the hats; and should he give a note for three mouths, he could not at that season of the year retail the hats. I was surprised, in my own mind, at this long credit ; but I learned that it was granted at the instigation of Mr. Bagg, in whose em. -M 87 ploy the Plaintlif hid been. The PiHiiitilT't butinru wm trifling;; he h*d « ■mail retail iture. Dccuiiiber to March, ui<- unruvourHblc iiiunthsi (nr rotHiltiiK hati. At that time I aiii not uwuii- timt the riuiiitiil' |)i»i.i'iii>iij ui, il it hud not bvt'ii fdi' iiit. i'i-|ii'i'M-iita> tionH Hhoiit ri'tailiii(; tiifiii. lilitiii IihmI hud ihvit previously huii miy dniliii|{« with l)i-l'ciidaiits I doiiotthink lie l)cl'.si sseil hiuiielf uf the liats, or ol'iiis bu^in(■ss. I never knew that I'laintill, in his deal- ings about the hatb with Mr. Lindsay, told iiim that lie was to truiisl'i r liall' the hats to .Mr. UuKfi) for uu ancient debt. Mi. lilanchurd never said any thiiiii about a wboiesule business, but he lepicst iitiil that lie liou;;lit the hats to retail thuiii. Mr. I.indiiuy would never have sold the h.its to iMaintilV, without l!a^i;N rcconimendutioii. The l>erendints' only steamy depended on the I'laintiirk hoiiebty, und the retail sale ol' the hats. Iceliii^ an interest in the sale ol thi- huts, under thetc circunistunces, I lie(|Uci)tly looked into the slio|i — eveiy tliin|; teemed to be goinj^ on as Usual^lhtiu was no ulteration in the shelves. 'I'he huts were fine beaver hats. Al'ler the coniinunicution by VuU|j;liun, (of which I was infurnied by Mr. i'loctor, ) 1 was directed to );et int'nniiutioii tliciemi, u» We thought the debt in jeopardy. I then went to lilant haul's store, and askvd to see him. I wus told that the I'luintifl' was not there; tiiat I'laintilV had nothing to do with the store and the business ; but that it belon;;ed to lliiil^e. This was the first tiiiic I hud heard of this transfer ; and up to this |)i lioil, I liad thought the store was I'tuintilV's. My iinpressiun wus, thit I'luintifl' hud acted unfuiily ; und, from what 1 ascertained, 1 made up my mind that I'luintilV in. tended to quit the Province. I upprisvd Mr. Smiili of tins, und he shewed greut repugnunce to adopt proceedings ; and 1 am convinced that nothing short (if the nctuul necessity, made him so uct. I nuide inqiiiiies as to Pniintili's cre- dit ; the results of which were very unsatisfactory, and cinilirmed my previoui unfavourable npinion of him. The result of my in(|uiries also tended to prove that his credit was bud, and his ehuructcr doubtful. I heurd something un> favourable of him at Mr. Muciiider'.s — 1 uiii not certain whether this Mas before the arrest. 1 think it was Mr. Mucnider's cleik who gave me the information : he is now ubscnt from the Province. Tlie liu'.s were invoiced as low as possible. Defendants would have i)eon justified in exuctiug oU per cent, more for the hats; but, in conseijuence of Mr Lindsay being on the point of going to h'.nfi^' land) and wisliing to close the sales previously, the huts were on that ac- count sold lower than the usual rate, liud Pluintilf retailed the liat8« he ought to have niudc oil jer cent, profit. I fre((ueiitly met Plaintitf in the street after the sale to iiim, and he never acquainted me with his intention of changing his mode of dealing, lie never told me of the trun-fcr of half the hats at cost prices to Hugg. We heard of this fust from Vuughun. The ven- dors of hats in this city, sell both by wholesale und retail. A wholesule hatter, I should suppose, would require tools and implements of trade. Kxchaiige iu this market is considered us u cash article. To obiuin il, cash or the very best paper at three months is necessary. l''.xciiuiige for bills at nine months could only be oblaiued at a great sacrifice. 1 should doubt very much, if Urid|{e't notes would have obtained Exchange at all. The !- th of Junuury packet is con« tidered a lute conveyance fur oiileis for goods, Ly the spring arrivals, Ordeil transmitted on the istdf Feliruary, could not, I think, leave Kngiaiid, before the end of April, evi n if they were ready fur shipping. Orders for spring ai'» rivals ought to be sent by the end of Murcli, or beginning of December. People who hud but a .scanty stuck, ought to disp:itch their orders early in the fall. If fine hats did not arrive early in the spring, it would be very disadvuntugeoili to the importer. I never heard of such u transaction as that of Plaintiff'* mI^ to Bridge— it excited my suspicion immediately. It ik not pofsible, I thiflk* to 38 ' I dispose of «ucb ft tnule, at such a time of the year, without a great sacrifice ; and this it was that excited my suspifions, I rciiieiiiber Ti-ulow's coining to De- i'ciidHiits, pievious ti) I'laiiitifl's arrest, and stating to IMr Sniitli thut he held a note of l'l!iiiiliff"'s which had been due for some time, and was nut piiid. Any thing Tculon said of Plaiiitifl', did not remove my suspicions, but increased them. Altiioui^li the jjuicliase was lary;!', I did not thinii it extraordinary, as it was so favourable for I'laintifl' The Ueieiidants would have sold the hats by single ijiiciiagts, if so riMjiiirid. .Mr. Vauyhan, wlien he gave the inlormation to Defendants, imd no business transactions with Defendants ; and I ihijik his only object in coining, was to apprise them of Plaintiff's proceedings. I attach- ed implicit credence to A'uuglian's information, as he was a person of credit and character. Had I been in Mr. Smith's place, I should have acted on the information of so respectable a man as Mr. Vaughan. Mr. Jones was then thu attorney of Del'endants, to whom, 1 believe, Mr. Smith inunediately went. I recollect Mr. Jones coming down to Defendants, previous to PlaintilTs arrest, on this business. (ross-cxatnined by iNTr. Day, I do not think Plaintifl' and Bagg met at the Defendant's house by accident. I liave not been instructed by Defendants as to the purport of my eviderice this day. I come here to tell the truth. I have heard that A'aughan imported g( ()d» from the I niled States, without pajing duties. 1 have heard tliis as a rumour. I have never expn.ssed myself distrustful of Vaugbaii's testimony, nor has Mr. Smith, to my knowledge. I never remember Mr. Smith speaking about "Vauglian's evidence, it is possible that I might have said thai 1 would not ap- pear here, unless Vaughau was a witness, but 1 do not think I said so to any oiie. \H Richard Robinson. I am a cnrpenter. In 1S2!', I was called on by Blandiaid to lit up a wnrk-shup lor him behind his store. I fitted it up in Oct. Ib29. I understood from him and his men, that the shop was wanted for mak- ing and selling hats. I never heard that he had the shop fitted up to dispose of it again ; I understood (^uite the contrary, jMy bill was .-£15. 1 had a great deal of difficulty in obtaining j)aynu;nt. I was paid in .Tune 1S30. 1 took part of my bill, and gave a receipt for the rest ; and 1 was glad to get part. I often saw Plaintiff' ut tiie shop when I went for my money. 1 wanted a hat for one of my men in December, and went to the shop, where Bridge then was. He told nie he would sell me a hat, but on his own account, and not for Plaintiff'. I was surprised at hearing thai Plaintiff had sold the business to Bridge. The family Lalaniie, with whom Ulanchard boarded, told nie that Blanchard was going to quit the Province. This was just after Plaintiff" sold to Bridge, and before the arrest. 1 was very intimate with old Lulanue, who also informed nie that Blanckard intended to quit the Province. Cross-esamiiied, The Plaintiff' disputed my account, but without reason. lam not aware that the account was submitied to arbritrutors. 1 think 1 received somewhere about £7 — my bill was about .€11 10s. 1 have never before given evidence on this trial. J.iMM R. Okr. I am a partner in the house of Orr & Blackader, and deal in hats wholesale and retail. I am not aware of there being a wholesale hatter in .Montreal. A variety of implements for manufdcture, repair, and alteration of hats, are not requisite for a wholesale dealer, when the hats are completed and llnished. The ai tides of tools sold by Blanchard to Bridge, would be necessary for unffnished hats — and all the wliolesale dealers in this city possess them. Midgley and "Wilkinson have not yet been paid. Blanchard told me that the very ffisi debt be would pay, when he realized Bridge's notes, should be Midgley and Wilkinson's. Mr. J. G, Mackenzie. I am a wholesale dealer and importer of goods. I knew Blanchard :u lB2i). He was a small retailer of hats iu St. Paul Sreet. I should not hav« been disposed to trust hint. i.^ 39 Cross-examined, I knew nothing; about his character — my reluctance arose from his want of capital. I think he Hppliecl for credit to me in lb2\). I declined trusting him, because I knew nothinj^ ubuul him, Mr. Siii'Tia*. I liiivf imported extensively from England for niiuiy years past I have frequetitly inipnited piickaftcs of hats; and ;;Lnerally send my orders to Enfjiand in the beginnin^j of December, it recjuires time to execute »n order in ilnghiiid. An order sent in tiie beginning of l'el)ruary, would be r.ither too late for the spring arrivals. Unquestionably the early arrival of hats is moie necessary than that of other f;oMd>. I often remit Exchange to England. I cannot olitain K\cliaMge except for money, or good paper. The best paper must be givcit for I'lxcliangc. Looking over the selitdule of notes given lo liiidge, 1 think that no Exchange could have been piocured by such paper. I nevci heard of l''xehai,ge being obtained in this city, even by good notes, at sis, nine, and twelve months, except at a great sacrifice. I have always iiiideistood that all the hatters of Montreal have sho|)s, where they woik up hats, and linislt them. I'or this object a variety of tools is required. Cross-examiiied, I have spoken to i\Ir. Smith on this subject, as it has occupied the attention of society a good dial. No proposition was ever made lo nie, to enter into u sub- scription to defray the exjieiices of this trial. I huve never heard it said, that this suit was the common cause of the wholesale importers. 1 feel an interest in the result of this case, as I wish justice to be done. Mr. nnADBUUY. I remember a transaction between IJradbury & Co. and the Plaintiff, about some cloth, in the month of May, l^'2'..K The I'laiiitilV came to our store foi- cloth, which he wanted to make into caps. We shewed him some cloth ; and he said if we would let him have a yard, and if it suited him, lie would take a piece. He came back, and wanted four yards more, for which lie was to pay in casli. The amount was more than ,€:!. ^^'e refused hiiu credit, but as he solemnly pledged himself to pay in cash, wc let him have the cloth. We have never yet been paid, althoujih 1 have frequently demanded it. Mr. Thompson. I was a clerk in Miller, Fisher & Co.'s house in \S.29. They were always imjiorters of hats. It is their practice to forward orders lor spring ini|)ortations of hats, at the latest by the 1st .laimary. They sold to the PlaintilV, in .Tune IS'2i), a quantity of hats, (or ,C3 t, on his bill, at three months. The bill became doe on the lOth September ISi]9. PlaintilV gave X'20 on the 10th, and a note for CS.'). M'lii'ii this second bill was due, it ^vas dishonoured, and plote^ted. Blanch iid, after rrecpieiil C'literences, came and olVeitd us one of Bridge's bills. We made frequent demands lor paMiienls. lie wanted us to take a note of, I think, ,t 1 00, and give him the balaiite in cash. He then olVer- ed a bill of MnO, wliieh wc refused, as we thought the paper very unbusiness- like. He tiien got a bill from Bridge for the exact amount, dEi^j. Tools, and apparatus, are required by every vendor of hats. Geokge Dixon. I import woollen goods. Orders for spring importations should be sent in Novmiber. Orders sent in February Wriild proeure the goods in July, if they had to be inanufactuved after the receipt of the order. Mr. Walkkr here begged to enquire whether His Honor Mr. Justice Rol- t*ND had in his pos>e>sion his notes of the former trial, and more particularly the evidence of Abner Bagg. The object of his eiupiiry was that he miglil be enabled by the examination of the learned Judge to bring the notes of the former testimony of Bag'i before the present .'ury, and so contrast what that person had formerly staled before the Court willi the evidence he had given on this occasion. The Coi'RT could not allow this, as if Mr. Justice Rolland was examined as a witness, he must then go into the witness-box. to give his evidence, which 40 I r M h I. would Irare only one Jui1i;c on the bench' pcteiil til proceed with the trial. Mr. Walkkr then culled — -Hiid the Court WQuld thui be iacam. / Mr. J. T. Barrktt. — I import goods. Ordern for Koodn from Rnpland are nent hy me in Dicciiiber. I should not think ihut ordein ucnt in the beginning of Keliiuiiry culd he executed in time fur the »piin|{ nnivitU, | have known exchange sold over ninety days credit. I.xeimnjce ctin only he obtained by very unexci ptionnhle paper. I never knew exehiiii(,'e liou^hl by notcH iit nix, nine and tsvelvc nionthsi. I never heard ol' a rctuil dealer nvlliiig oil' all lii* goods te •tiibiirk in whok-Mile bu^iiu'ss. Mr. Walkkk here closed iiis case. Mr. ButnnKAU called by Flaintin'. — I know Mr. I.umnn Vnuglitn ; he hat been in business a good many ye:iri> here. Me iinpinted Krench always considered ii tattler {bttbiUard)—A talc teller. WitneM would not give credit to what he sjid, since he experienced instances of hi* unrairncsi. 1 would not believe what Vaugban stdted on his oatii in iiicrcaulilo inatlcri. CroM-exainined. I am a retail dealer. I have experienced loKses in businotii. I once bought a quantity of goods at an auction where Vaughan was present. On this occa- sion Vau;;han told uie to bid up for ribbons at Is hd per yard. The purchase was knocked down to mc, and 1 expected Vauulian wouUi have taken them from me and paid for them. Uut Vaughan denied thut he hud done so, and I was obliged to pay, and lost about ^2J. Witness understood that the ribboui belonged to Vaughan. Mr. Day moved that a particular passage of thii former evidence of Mr. Proctor might be read ; but Mr. >V.\lki.I( objecting to a detached portion only being received, the Plaintiff withdrew his reijuest. Mr. Walkick re-called Mr. J. T. Bakhktt. — I knew Mr. I.uman Vaughan as a merchant, and never heard his character impeached. If Mr. Vaughan had inlormcd me that a debtor was acting in the way Klanehard acted toward* Defendants, I should have proceeded on the inforiualion in the same way as the Defendants did. (,'rotis.examined. My opinion of Vaughan's character is that it is unimpeachable. Mr. Andrew Shaw. — I know Mr. Vaughan; ho was a merchant here for many years. He was a wiiolesale dealer, and Un some time a money broker. The latter business renders it necessary to possess a good en pilal. From Mr. Vaughun's standing in the commercial world, aud liom Ills general character* I should readily believe what he told nie. Here the Defendants closed their case, and Mr. riiKHUiKii, in reply thereto, addressed the .Jury in the French language. After which His Honor the Chiek .Tlntick charged the .Tury to this effect: — That it WHS to be regretted that the lime of the .lury li.id been so long occu> pied in a case of so simple u nature. The only '•iieinnstaiice necessary to be observed appeared to be this. An indiviilual euinplains llnit he was unlawfully arrested, when he had no intention of leaving the j'lovini'c ; that is to say, that the Defendants arrested him with a maiicinus vh-w of doing him injury. The opinion of former .furies was to have no ellecl on (he minds of the pre- sent panel, whose duly it was to form a deei^ion upon k\liiit had been heard upon this and the two foregoing days. The Jiii y must banish Iroin their ntiuds all h "fmtimtH 41 that they may have heard ia tociety, and must come to their duty uninfluenced by feeling or prepossession. The PlaintifT asks .£5000 to recompense him lor an illegal arrest, and impri> loiimcnt without cause. There are considerations on both sides of the (question, and when a man comes to ask justice against others, he must first prove that he also has acted justly towards those against whom he urges his complaint. His Honor here recapitulated the circumstances of the ciise as borne out by the evidence. There is no doubt that Vaughan's communication must have etcited alarm in the Defendants ; they would necessarily feel surprise, ».' Montreal, 2Uh December, 1829. £25 Currency. Six months after date I promise to pay to Mr. Peter Spink, or order, the lum of twenty-five pounds, currency, for value received. (Signed) D, Br.dce. Montreal, 24th December, 1829. £25 Currency. Three months after date I promise to pay to Mr. William Thompson, or order, the sum of twenty -five pounds, currency, for value received. (Signed) D. Bridgi;. Montreal, 21th December, 1829. £2;^ Currency. Three months after date I promise to pay to Mr. P. Spink, or order, the sum of twenty .five pounds, currency, for value received. (Signed) D. Bridge. Montreal, 24th December, 1S29. £50 Currency. Four months after date I promise to pay to Mr. Wra. Thomp.son, of order, the sum of fifty pounds, currency, for value received. (Signed) Daniel Bridge. Montreal, 24th December, 1829. JE50 Currency. Five months after date I promise to pay to Mr. P. Spink, or order, the sum of fifty pounds, currency, for value received. (Signed) Daniel Bridge. Montreal, 21th December, 1829. JE50 Currency. Eight months after date 1 promise to pay to Mr, L. Bla'ichard, or order, the sum of fifty pounds, currency, for value received. (Signed) D. Bridge. Montreal, 21th December, 1S29. £50 Currency. Nine months after date I promise to pay to Mr. i.. Blauchard, or order, the sum of fifty pounds, currency, for value received. (Signed) D. Bridge. Montreal, 24th December, 1829. £50 Currency. "^ Ten months after date I promise to pay to Mr. L, Blanchaid, or order, the mm of fifty pounds, currency, fur value received, (Signed) I). Bridge. 44 Montreal, 24th December, 1829. JE60 Currency. Twelve months after date I promise to pay to Mr. L. Blanchard, or order, the sum of sixty pounds, currency, for value received. (Signed) D. Bridge. (Signed) Louis Blanchahd, ^ Daniel Bkioce, G. D. Arnoldi, t). P. N. B. DoucKT, N. P. Ai it appears in tiie original remaining at the subscribing Notaries office. N. B. DoiicET, ?>. P. >u Schedule referred to in the annexed Aiiigtiment, marked A. 43 Beaver Hats, a 20s Sd 21 do do a 2Ss 0^ <■• • -• t 21 do do rt25s lOd 24 do do a 2Ss 8d 17 Plated do alisSd ••• ••• • 15 do do a 10s lAd 15 Black and Drab Hats," (Smith,) a 25s . 6 do do (Wm. R. & Co.) 2 do do (Mems.) a ISs . 1 do do a 27s 6d ... 7 do do a27s8d... 10 do do o26s5d... S do do rtlSslOd... 1 do do a32s6d... 21 Drab Silk do a 6sb'd ... 2 Plated . do n7s8d ... 10 Imitations do a 7s 5 do do n6sSd ... 7 Drab do alls ... 5 Bonnets, a 9s 6d ... 11 Black Bonnets, Trimmed, a 9s ... 1 Drab do do Plume, u 12s 13 Blaek do do a 8s ... I do do do a 5s 3d 4 OidStockdo do a 4s ... 21 (loth Caps, a 6s 8d ■ • • •* • • 64 Wool Hats, a Is Sd • • • • • • 44 do do aGd ... 4 Caps, rt 2i Gd • « • • • • 75 Band Boxes, a Sd ... • * 1 ••• • 1 Pair Scales, a 6s 3d Weights, rt 4s .. • • t « . .• ••• , 3 Bows and Sti ings, a Ss 4d a 18s.. 6d 10 Bonnet Bodies, W. P., a 2s Sd ..£48 12 .. 27 IS .. SI .. 48 14 .. 9 11 S .. 7 19 lO, .. 18 IS .. S 8 8 .. 1 16 .. 1 7 6 .. 9 14 3 .. 18 4 2 .. 2 1 6 .. 1 12 6 ..8 .. IS 4 .. 4 10 .. 1 11 3 .. 2 17 ..2 7 6 .. 4 19 .. 12 6 .. 5 4 ..0 5 3 .. 16 ..8 ..4 1 2 .. 10 .. 1 17 6 ..0 6 3 ..0 4 .. 1 5 1 S 45 s 'I' 8 6 3 2 6 6 4 3 6 6 3 6 3 Vi 6 20 8 6 3 9 1 6 1 4 (> 9 30 Blocks, a 7s 6d ii 13 10 1 Hardening Skin, a 4s 4 Stove and Pipes, a lis 11 2 Bonnet Bodies, W. P., 2s Sd 4 20 Bonnets, Old Stock, a 10s 20 2 AVool Hats, a Is 3d 16 Imitation Wool Hats, a 7s 6d 1 Basket, a Is 6d 50 Bonnets and Hats, a 8s 2d 5 Block Bottoms, a 5s 1 Tin Cannister, a 7s Gd 1 Shovel, a Ss 9d 2| dozen Strenches, a Ss 6 Brushes, a 5s 1 Sewer, a Is Gd, and 1 Tub, a 2s Gd 1 Puncheon, a 5s 1 Steaming Box, a 3s ... 1 Fair Irons, a 15s 1 Stanrper, a 3s 2 Beating Boards and Pins, a 2s 6d 1 Whirly Gig, a ls6d 2 Buckets, a Is 8d I Stiffening Table, a 5s Glass and Putty, a 7s 8, lion at Door to Hay-house, a 15s 1 Doer, a7s6d Shelves, a 85s ... ... ... Do -a 15s ... ... ... ... Brick Laying, Steaming Kettle, a 10s Finishing Bench, a 10s 6d Rack, a 10s, Paving Shop, a 20s Brick Laying, ... ... ... ... ... Plank Kettle, , Coloring do Grates, &c. ... ... ... 4000 Bricks, a 25s , Desk and Stool ... ... .. ... , Bunk, ... Painting Shelves Stove Pipes, Stove Pan, ... Shelves in Window Window Blind 3 Baskets, a lOd Steps and Sprinkler, 2 Bonnet Stands, a2s6d Sundries, ... ... ... 320 Bodies 39 Skivers, a 3s 4^d 48 Band Boxes, a 6d 1 Bonnet Stand; 11 dozen Stitched leather, o 2s Sd 17 do do do a2$6|d 19 Cap Straps, a Gd Thread, Cotton Balls, Cloth, ... ,,, ... ... ... ... Sundries, Piping Cord IJ yds Gloz Cotton, a 5s Sundries, 6 4 8 G 5 7 3 12 1 10 4 6 S 16 3 5 1 8 5 1 2 7 1 15 15 3 15 10 10 6 1 10 4 10 5 5 IS 10 1 4 5 4 9 I 6 10 20 6 11 7* I 2 2 1 9 1 14 9^ 9 1 3 10 1 2 10 8 7 S 6 5 3 2 6 9 /i : / 11 > 46 It do I do ll do 1 do a 2s Ad 3 gi'oss Black Mutkles, aZt ... 38 pieces naiiding, a Gs Do Bauds J gloss Binding, a Us 2^ do do a Us 6d ... do « lis (id ... do Muskrats, ti 10s S:37 do. a 9s 5 lb. Coney Wool, a 10s 9.id S] do. Uase Sildes, h i4s lOd 1 j do. Russia, a Is S^d 2 do. Coney, a ISs 4d S do. do. a lOs 9.|d 2 Band Boxes, and Basket, If) oz. IMuskrats, n Is bd 2j do. Russia, a 2s od 1 Bey, a lOd 1 pair Raisin Cords, a 4s 2 do. Buckles, a Is lOjd 1 Trunk, a 4s Carpenters "Work, 16 lb. Gum Sheila, a 2.< 4 gallons Alcohol, a 5s 3 lb. Raisins, a Sd By amount of Account, Discount, • • • •• £ 12 9 • * • ■ • < 19 8 ■ • • • • « 3 ■ •• *• > G • ■ • ■> . 9 • • ■ * ■ 1 8 9 • < * •! • 14 5 • . • ••• 14 • *• #•* 16 • •• •■• 9 5 • • * • ■.• 15 • •• ■■• 1 8 6 • •• •>. 5 6 • • • •• • S 11 ,,, , ,, \B • • • ■ • • 2 6 * •• •. * 8 4 • •• •• 18 81 • •• •*« 1 • •1 ••• 12 3 • •• ..• 1 14 2 • • • •• • 1 6 * ■ • ■ • t 9 10 8 12 12 9 • • • • • • 2 IS 11,4 ... • ■ • 2 14 n ** • •■* S 15 3 * • • •• • 1 8 • • • . . * 1 12 4* • • • > • • 1 10 • ■• •#• 1 8 t • ■ • • 5 7A • •• . •• 10 • • • • • • 4 • • I (ft 3 9 ••• ••• 4 t • • • ■ I 10 • ■ « ( • ■ 1 12 • • • • • • 1 9 £485 S 4 dEl2 12 llf 12 10 a\ 25 S 4 (Signed) £460 Lewis Blanchard, Daniel Bridge, J. P. Grant, N. P. And N. B. DoDCET, N. P. N. D0DC£T, N. P. VI 9 8 9 8 5 "i 10 o' 4 S 9 4 12 9 S 4 S 4 47 VI 1823 , Aug. 7. It » Sept. 11. »» 27. Oct. 11. j> i. »» 27. Dec. (). »» 21. 1829 MaicU 28 )i >> April 20. June 4. Auf?. 11. Oct. IG. ♦» 2S. Nov. 17. J) 19. »» »» Dec. 22. 1 L. Ul.ANi HARD; I'luq. To n. Briucr, Dr. To j yard (Hoz Silk, a lOi To 1 Cap Pciik, a 2s To 1 yard Gioz Cotton, a 5s To 2 pieces Hiiiding, a 5g 6d To ,^ yard Gloz Cotton, a 5s To Covering Hat, a G& lid To 2 Honncts, rt 13s 9d To 1 piece Band, a 4s To 1 Seal Skin Cap, a 8s To 1 London Hut, a 30s To 1 yard Gloz Cotton, a 6s To 1 Patent Leather Skin, a 8s To ;] yard Gloz Cotton, a Ss To \2 Muskrals, a Is 8d To 8 yards Wire, ft Is To 1 Bonnet, a ISs To 2 Satts Ribbon, a SOs To 12 Plated Hats, a 9s 9d To 12 do. do. a 8s Gd. To Ribbon, a 9s Coals, a 10s ... ... By amount of my Account, To Goods, ERRATUM. P. 30, line 2, for Us$ read mart. £0 7 6 2 5 11 6 S 1 7 6 4 I 10 6 8 4 1 3 15 S 5 14 5 2 9 10 M22 15 9 IS 2 JA £7 12 llj 5 £12 12 11| V