Si8 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1814. 



and taken the benefit of an insol- 

 vent act, had sntfered judgment to 

 this action by default. The ob- 

 ject of the action was to recover 

 from tlie defendant Robinson the 

 sum of 2,000/. which the plaintiff 

 had deposited in the hands of 

 Mr. Lee, for the purchase of an 

 annuity, the defendants being 

 jointly his solicitors ; and the ques- 

 tion was, whether this was such 

 a joint employment and entrust- 

 ing of Messrs. Robinson and Lee 

 as warranted the plaintiff to claim 

 the money of Mr. Robinson, as 

 the solvent partner. On the part 

 of the defendant, it was contend- 

 ed, that as this sum was received 

 by Mr. Lee as his own personal 

 account, and embezzled by him, 

 the plaintiff had no right to call 

 upon Mr. Robinson for it; but 

 Mr. Park, for the plaintiff, quoted 

 the case of Willett v. Chambers, 

 Cowper 814, in which it was 

 held, where of two attorneys or 

 conveyancers, one of the partners 

 gave a separate receipt for a sum 

 of money, still the other was lia- 

 ble for it. It was proved in evi- 

 dence, that the plaintiff employed 

 the defendants as his joint attor- 

 neys, and had receipts for payments 

 to them in the year 1808, on their 

 joint account. In 1811 he applied 

 to them to lay out 2,000/. in the 

 purchase of an annuity, and saw 

 Mr. Lee, who told him he knew 

 of a client, Mr. lUingworth, who 

 wanted to grant such an annuity 

 upon two houses, the title-deeds 

 of which were lying on his table. 

 Mr. lUingworth also proved that 

 he had such a wish, and that he 

 called at the office of his solici- 

 tors, Messrs. Robinson and Lee, 

 several times on that business, 

 generally seeing Mr. Lee. The 

 plaintiff* being ordered abroad to 



Sicily with his regiment, directed 

 Mr. Timbrel!, the purchaser of an 

 estate of his in Wiltshire, to pay 

 the sum in question over to Mr. 

 Lee ; and that defendant wrote to 

 Mr. Timbrell to pay the money 

 into the hands of his bankers, 

 Messrs. Child and Co. to his pri- 

 vate account. This Mr. Timbrell 

 accordingly did, knowing nobody 

 in the transaction but Mr. Lee. 

 The receipt of the sum was ac- 

 cordingly entered by the bankers 

 to the private account of Mr. Lee, 

 Messrs. Robinson and Lee having 

 a joint account with the same 

 bankers. The plaintiff's letters to 

 Mr. Lee on this business were 

 addressed to him only, and not to 

 Messrs. Robinson and Lee. On 

 the I5th of September, 1813, the 

 partnership being dissolved, the 

 plaintiff, on his return to England, 

 wrote to the defendant Lee, di- 

 rected No. 19, Lambeth Road, 

 within the rules of the King's Bench 

 Prison, where he then was, to aek 

 him if he could prove by any means 

 whether Mr. Robinson was con- 

 cerned in the purchase of his 

 annuity as well as himself, and 

 whether the receipt of the 2,0001. 

 was entered in the partnership 

 books. This, Lord EUenborough 

 observed, looked as if the plaintiff 

 began to feel the hazard of his 

 case, about which he was anxious 

 to obtain all the proof in his 

 power. On the 14th of October, 

 1813, he wrote to Mr. Robinson, 

 intimating that Mr. Lee had told 

 him there was a sum due to him 

 from the partnership concern, which 

 might go towards paying Lee's 

 debt to the plaintiff: he would be 

 glad to know whether this infor- 

 mation was correct, and how much 

 he was to expect. This, Lurd 

 EUenborough admitted, did look 



