A Common Barrator
TO THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL
And the PROFESSION of the LAW in particular.
The KING against WILLIAM WARD
THIS most important and novel case came on to be tried at the last
Northampton Assizes, the defendant being indicted as a Common Barrator,
and there being no less that 30 cases against him of moving and
exciting frivolous and vexatious suits and controversies. He was one of
those pest who, having no pretensions or qualifications whatever, seek
and obtain an infamous living by fomenting broils and quarrels, and
stirring up strifes and controversies indiscriminately, amongst all
classes of society, and whose vile proceedings, while they destroy their
best interests, bring into public scorn, execration, and infamy, an
honorable and liberal profession, by passing themselves off as
Attorneys, and each successive delinquency brings odium upon the legal
profession.
The above named defendant has lived by the wages of fraud, perjury,
and oppression for 25 or 30 years, and might have continued that course
for as many years to come, if living as long, but for the spirited and
unwearied exertions in mind and body, and exhaustion of purse, of one
individual, Mr. EMPSON, Solicitor, of Leamington, who had the courage,
single handed, to attack, combat with, and vanquish this hydra, for so
many years the scourge and dread of a very extended circuit, and held in
such terror as to create a belief that he was invincible.
One day he prepared a will and the next procured a sham revocation to
destroy it--waited a short time for the death of the testator, and then
set up the revocation, in opposition to the will--counselled the person
who, in the absence of such will would have been entitled to
administration, to swear that the deceased died intestate, well knowing
the contrary, and so obtained administration of those very effects
already vested in the executor--brought action upon action against the
party intitled under the will at the suit of the false administratrix,
some in trover for goods that were never possessed by any one, others
for trespasses never committed, &c. &c. regardless of getting her into
custody, and being kept there for costs--seized the goods of the tenant
in the house, and the hay of the landlord in the close obtained judgment
in ejectment by a gross and abominable perjury of his own, in swearing
to the service of a declaration in ejectment never served at all, and
when such judgment was set aside by the court, swearing and suborning
the foulest of perjuries to sustain it, and where the party so
persecuted called in the aid of magistrates for summary redress,
bringing actions against them--bestrewing their table weekly at Petty
Sessions with notices and threatening papers--moving applications to the
Court of King's Bench against such magistrates, for no motive but
vexation--and openly and audaciously declaring that it was useless for
the prosecutor to get judgments, for that as soon as he did so in one
action, he should have two more brought, and so on in succession, until
being worn out with expenses, he should be compelled to relinquish all
his just and legal claims. Thus one man was involved in no less than 13
suits, at an expense of £600, respecting a property not worth £100 after
paying off the mortgage.
He arrested another (John Henson, of Brixworth), in the Court of
King's Bench, for a false and fictious debt, and being foiled by his
bailing it instead of going to prison, arrested him again in the Common
Pleas, the action being equally pretence-less, and when again defeated
by bail, gave notice of trial of the first action in York Assizes ready
for trial; but he never dared to bring forward the cause.
He arrested another man, Thomas Wallis, of Naseby (a labourer with a
family), for £20, who did not owe him a shilling, and when the Court of
King's Bench set aside all the proceedings, he immediately, in defiance,
commenced another equally groundless action against the same man, and
some months afterwards seized all his good.
He ruined an honest farmer, John West, formerly of Weldon, but now
reduced to the greatest poverty, and living at Desborough, having
seduced him to commence an action against one Noble Lord (Cardigan) his
landlord, and others, and to resist the claims of another Noble Lord (Winchilsea)
also his landlord for the rent of his farm by which the rent was
lost--enormous costs created, and the tenant sent to prison until his
lordship most generously discharged him.
He applied to a Mr. William Chapman, a respectable gentleman, and
William Palmer, a farmer, both of Foxton, Leicester, to lend him money,
begging them to write in reply by the driver of Pickford's Van, by whom
he stated the letters would come more direct, they did so, but not
sending the money, he caused two actions to be brought against them, and
they unconsciously offending against the law, by his own procurement,
involved the former in enormous expenses.
Considering the number of cases got up, and ready to be proved at the
trial, the expense could not be less that £400, and the labour must
have been intense, and all falling on one individual, making the costs
of the trial and the suits, not less than £1,000.
The case was tried at Northampton Assizes, on the 5th of March last,
and occupied the attention of the court and jury from eight o'clock in
the morning till eight at night, when the defendant was found guilty,
and sentence by the Learned Judge Sir Nicholas Conyngham Tindal, to two
years' imprisonment, and then to find sureties for good behaviour for
two years longer.
On the same evening a subscription was opened for the purpose of
defraying the great expenses and loss incurred by Mr. Empson in bringing
the defendant to justice, and a sum of about £200 is already subscribed,
which, however, goes but a little way towards giving even an indemnity
for actual cash disbursements.
To the public, Mr. Empson's friends confidently submit that every man
in society may be benefitted by the laudable spirit, indefatigable and
persevering exertions of the gentleman alluded to, because no man can
say that he would not have been the next victim.
The proverb says what is every body's business is nobody's. Mr.
Empson has, for the public benefit, shown an example to the contrary,
which cannot be too highly estimated. It is hoped the public, who reap
the benefit, will not be backward in giving the reward, and in this
particular instance show that what is every body's business every
attends to, and then, however small the mite, Mr. Empson will not only
be reimbursed for his immense outlay, but recompensed for his unwearied
labour, for many months to the injury of all his other business.
Can anything be more palpable than the degradation the profession is
reduced to? A profession that is compatible with all that can adorn and
dignify the character of man! A profession that ought to be, and would
be universally respected and revered, instead of execrated, but for a
comparatively few worthless individuals, mostly interlopers, like the
man now brought to justice. Let the gentlemen of the profession look to
the matter in its different bearings. One out of the many thousands has
stood forth and brought a great delinquent to justice; has he not fought
for every one of them as well as himself?--most undoubtedly he has!
Shall he go unrequited? Is it just towards him? Is it
policy towards themselves? and in this particular point of view the
public are also deeply interested in checking and
keeping in awe other wrong doers; yet, if from apathy and supineness in
place of public spirit and liberality, an individual like Mr. EMPSON,
who has expended many hundred pounds out of pocket, is to go
unrecompensed, no one can suppose another will engage, however great the
necessity or imperative the duty, in such a contest; and the consequence
will be, that knaves may revel in their infamous proceedings, their
atrocities magnify, their numbers multiply, and recklessly fatten upon
vitals of society for want of that check which the liberality of the
public alone can bestow, and society be protected by.
Northampton Mercury,
Saturday 09 May 1835
Note: The John West referred to above may be
the John West,
recorded in Desborough in 1841 as a labourer, but in 1851 as a retired
farmer. The latter gives his birthplace as Desborough, but a single
census reference is not sufficient to prove this.