Pearson v Lemaitre

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date11 May 1843
Date11 May 1843
CourtCourt of Common Pleas

English Reports Citation: 134 E.R. 742

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Pearson
and
Lemaitre

S. C. 6 Scott, N. R. 607; 12 L. J. C. P. 253. Referred to, Hebditch v. M'Ilwaine, [1894] 2 Q. B. 61.

peakson v. lemaitke. May 11, 1843. - [S. C. 6 Scott, N. B. 607; 12 L. J. C. P. 253. Eeferred to, Hebditch v. M'llwaine, [1894] 2 Q. B. 61.] In an action for defamation, either party may, with a view to the damages, give evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a malicious motive; but if the evidence given for that purpose establishes another cause of action, the jury should be cautioned against giving any damages in respect of such other cause of action. Case for a libel. The declaration, after stating as inducement that the plaintiff used and exercised the profession and business of an attorney and solicitor, and held the office of solicitor of the city of London, set out the libel, which was in the form of a letter, dated the 13th of November 1841, addressed to one Thomas Starling, containing the following passages; "You must [701] be aware of the circumstances attending my visits to Italy, in the endeavour to recover from the heiress of the Zeeubio estate considerable advances I had, at her desire, made in liquidation of claims on my old friend the Count, who had left me his executor. I engaged Charles Pearson (meaning the plaintiff) as solicitor, a man whose total destitution of honourable principle we have found commensurate only with his consummate art, tact, and general ability. I thought him (meaning the plaintiff) honest, and believed his representations of having vastly more business than he had means to execute; and I was induced to make him several loans of some 501. at a time, and seeing him, on one occasion, communicate information that threw his wife into great distress, I hastened home, and, unsolicited, inclosed him my cheque for 1001., offering to double this sum, if he required so much to settle his difficulty. With these claims on his justice, if not his gratitude, he was profuse in protestations of attachment. * Having been arrested at the suit of a pretended claimant on the count's estate. I gave Pearson (meaning the plaintiff) a cheque for a sum between 5001. and 6001. to lodge with the secondary in lieu of bail. The chancellor, on the hearing, ordered the money to be immediately refunded; and I now saw the necessity for a journey to Italy. Despite of the order, under various pretences, Pearson (meaning the plaintiff), deferred obtaining the return of my deposit from day to day for three weeks ; and, at the end of this time, gave me such assurances, I no longer doubted I should have it during the day, and therefore took places and prepared for my journey the next morning. To secure the money, I waited at Ms (meaning the plaintiff's) house much of the day, and until after midnight, when he appeared and said he had been again prevented seeing the secondary ; but, if I would leave directions, the disposal [702] of the money might be relied upon by ten the next morning. I had no choice, and wrote out instructions to pay 3001. to your father's care, and the balance, near 3001. more, to my bankers, to meet various cheques I had (a) And see Badman v. Pugh, ante, 391 ,(J). .. . 5 MAN. & G. 703. PEARSON V. LEMAITRE 743, drawn; and I advised your father to take charge of this money, as we had agreed. Your father made repeated application for this money without success; and at length, doubting Pearson's (meaning the plaintiff's) veracity, called on the secondary to enquire why the deposit was not delivered up. The books were referred to; and your father is my witness that the scoundrel Pearson (meaning the plaintiff) had taken up the deposit two months before, and on the very day on which I had left England! Your father hastened to Pearson (meaning the plaintiff), who again protested how--ever that he could not get the money out of the hands of the secondary. Indignant at his (meaning the plaintiff's) base treachery, your father said he had examined the books, and, on this denouement, Pearson (meaning the plaintiff) admitted the fraud, and confessed that he had applied the sum to his own uses, and had no present means of repayment.* On my return to England, and, after very much of vexatious difficulty and delays, I obtained from P. (meaning the plaintiff), not the return of the money of which I had been swindled, but a specious statement of pretended claims on property in the West Indies, &c. After much pressing him (meaning the plaintiff), finding I was obliged to revisit Italy, I obtained from him 1001. In Italy I took legal proceedings, and soon obtained from the countess a bond, to be accepted and guaranteed by her agents in England, for the full amount of my claim, reaching finally to upwards of 30001. I forwarded the bond to Pearson (meaning the plaintiff), with instructions that he (meaning the plaintiff) should take all necessary steps to get.this document ratified. Eeceiving no acknowledgment, I wrote again and again, but in vain. [703] At length I sent a statement of the particulars to my friend Place, who called on P. (meaning the plaintiff); and having obtained of him (meaning the plaintiff) the . free avowal that I had been the greatest benefactor he (meaning the plaintiff) had ever known, put to him (meaning the plaintiff) the stringent query-how, then, could he (meaning the plaintiff) treat me so shamefully 1 He (meaning the plaintiff) at first denied the possibility that he (meaning the plaintiff) could ill-use me: but on Place handing him (meaning the plaintiff) my letter, he (meaning the plaintiff) lowered his face upon his hands,'and affected to weep bitterly, conceding the truth of my statement, but utterly denying that he (meaning the plaintiff) had received any communication from me, although, after sending him the bond, I had written to him (meaning the plaintiff) five several letters. I was now obliged to obtain a duplicate copy of the bond. This I hastened to forward to Place, begging him to confide it into careful hands, upon which he could fully rely. Will it be believed ! Place, in his progress to execute my desires, unhappily met Pearson (meaning the plaintiff) in the Strand ; and such was the fascinating power of this wretch (meaning the plaintiff) that he (meaning the plaintiff) actually prevailed on Place to surrender to his (meaning the plaintiff) traitorous hands my second bond. Pearson (meaning the plaintiff) had promised me that, as I was forced to leave England on the second occasion with slender means, he (meaning the plaintiff) would supply the needful; but he (meaning the plaintiff) sent not one penny to my aid, and, with the wicked and cruel design of prolonging my absence, or perhaps bribed to commit the theft, he (meaning the plaintiff), daringly suppressed and denied that he (meaning the plaintiff) had received any communication, although his (meaning the plaintiff's) wife and her mother and brother well knew the fact, and have all [704] three confessed to me the truth:" and in a certain other part of the libel was the false, &c. matter following: " From time to time I therefore renewed my applications; and, on my appointment to a foreign station, I gave instructions to Mr. Ashurst to enforce the payment, putting into his possession a correspondence wherein his own (meaning the plaintiff's) confessions would have destroyed him (meaning the plaintiff). With as much delay as he (meaning the plaintiff) could throw in pleading all manner of objections, and offering bills at one and two years for 1501., which I rejected, he (meaning the plaintiff) consented to my proposal to arbitrate. I now had hope of a settlement; but neither threat nor entreaty could extort from him (meaning the plaintiff) the name of his arbitrator; and at length, within forty-eight hours of the appointment to embark, I was reduced to the mortifying necessity of accepting his (meaning the plaintiff's) bills, resigning his (meaning the plaintiff's) letters, and executing the infamous release drawn up by his (meaning the plaintiff's) best wits, to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Elwardo G. Lynch Appellant/1st Defendant v Ralph Gonsalves Respondent/Claimant [ECSC]
    • St Vincent
    • Court of Appeal (Saint Vincent)
    • 21 Junio 2011
    ...actual malice which resulted in increased mental distress to the respondent. Simpson v Robinson 12 Q.B.D. 541 (1841) 12 Q.B.D. 541 ; Pearson v Lemaitre (1843) 5 M&G 700 at page 19; Gatley on Libel and Slander (10th Edition) at pages 1014 to 1015; and Keith Burnstein v Imes Newspaper Ltd. Ca......
  • Derek Gwyn Davies and Others; Lee Kuan Yew
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 Enero 1989
  • Abdul Ghafar v Hasnul
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Gleaner Company Ltd and Dudley Stokes v Abrahams (Eric Anthony)
    • Jamaica
    • Court of Appeal (Jamaica)
    • 29 Octubre 2000
    ...be awarded in respect of the content of those articles. For this proposition the appellants relied on the cases of (I) Pearson v. Lemaitre 5 MAN & G 718 reported in [1843] 134 E.R. 742 (2) Darby v. Ouseley [1856] 156 E.R. 1093 and Anderson v. Calvert [1908] 24 T.L.R. 399. 63 In Pearson v. L......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT