« 이전계속 »
public be induced to believe this, when the said Court Pigott, relating, not to Pigott's credit as a witness, but to the consists of Sir Richard himself and life-long friends, who
arrangement made by Mr. Soames, on the part of The Times, have grown up side by side with him in his professional
that his clients would not see harm come to him (Pigott) in career? Saying this much, however, in just criticism of
consequence of his supporting in the witness box statements
he had given to Mr. Soames, and is absolutely silent as to part of Sir Henry James's speech, we have nothing but
Pigott's warnings about his own credit. In fact, in the words admiration for its chivalrous tone, and this, at any rate, we of the Attorney-General above quoted, it was “the arrange. can hold forth as worthy of imitation. We take occasion to ment in writing" between The Times and Pigott. repeat, too, that whatever might be thought of the prudence It will thus be seen that the Attorney-General has been or over-zeal, or want of care of Sir Richard, there can be
misled into making an important misstatement on a very im. but one opinion of his honour and integrity.
portant point. It is clear beyond doubt that, before Pigott was put into the box, no letter was called for, produced, referred to, or put in, showing that Pigott had discredited his own evidence in letters to Mr. Houston or Mr. Soames, and
neither Sir Charles Russell nor the other counsel, nor I as MR. GEORGE Lewis, the solicitor for Mr. Parnell, writes :
solicitor for the defence, had notice of any such letter till
after Pigott's disappearance. I must call attention to an amazing and important mis. In conclusion, I desire to say that I not depending upon statement of the Attorney-General in Friday night's debate, my recollection, but upon reference to the official shorthand
He followed Sir W. Harcourt in the debate, and replied to notes of the proceedings. the following passage in the speech of Sir W. Harcourt :
I wish to know when the Attorney-General was made acquainted with the letter of November 17, in which Pigott declared his own infamy, and informed Mr. Houston and Mr.
The fee on the Attorney-General's Brief, and on that of Soames that if he went into the witness-box his character Sir Henry James, was £1,500, with commensurate refreshers would be made known, with the result that the case for the for each day of the investigation. prosecution would be destroyed.
Referring to this the Attorney-General is reported to have said :
Now, will the Committee listen to this statement of simple SINCE writing on the subject, we have noticed the renewed dates ? I had told the House that I knew of the letter in the discussion in the House of Commons. We have heard Sir middle of December. Before Pigott went into the box-five Charles Russell's statement, and we are not prepared to say, days before-I put that letter into the hands of the hon.
for the present at any rate, that we disagree with him. It and learned member for South Hackney. So, if it was desirable that the other side should know-if they ought to
is quite possible, as we have before said, that when the know—that that man's character was discredited, I myself Commission is closed and Sir Richard is wholly unfettered, had given that information. (Loud and continued cheering,
he may be able to furnish us with other refutations than he and cries of “Withdraw."') Hon. members who have has yet been able to afford, on the points mentioned in our cheered me do not want the charges withdrawn. They have leader of a fortnight ago. It is possible, and we wish we been refuted by evidence which cannot be disputed. (Re. could go the length of saying that it seems probable. newed cheering). In the course of Mr. Soames's evidence, There is not the slightest bit of good, however, in making which was given some days before February 20, the letter was called for, and I produced it and handed it to the
the extravagant charges which overheated radical politihon, and learned member for Hackney before Pigott went into
cians are making out of the incident. The letter itself, the box.
which Sir Richard is blamed for not handing over to the Sir William Harcourt: Two months afterwards.
other side, did not really go anywhere near the point of The Attorney-General: The right hon. gentleman says suggesting that the statement he (Pigott) had made to the two months afterwards. The accusation made against me Times was untrue. It really was intended to convey the a moment ago was, that I did not let the other side know impression merely that his general character was not so that Pigott was a tainted witness. when I found it out, but that I called him without letting good as to lead him to look forward with pleasure to cross
examination. This certainly would not be enough to the other side know. Will the Committee believe that, having handed the letter to my hon, and learned friend, who was
entitle a counsel, acting for his client, to discard a witness, conducting the case against me, he asked that it might not or to try to discredit him; and a client would have reasonbe read, as I wished it, until Pigott went into the box? able ground of complaint against a counsel who so acted.
There were, in fact, two letters, of November 11 and 17, Nay, further, in view of the way in which some of the to Mr. Soames from Pigott. The first enclosed a copy of a
witnesses had backed out of their statements; the dread letter of the same date which he had written to Mr. Houston
which the Times people, with more or less cause, had of (but which Mr. Houston destroyed), and the second was written direct to Mr. Soames.
their witnesses being intimidated or bribed by Invincibles In both these letters Pigott clearly conveyed that he was or others; the ranks from which this witness was drawn; an untrustworthy witness.
the coquetting with him of Mr. Labouchere ; all these were Neither the existence, much less the contents of these circumstances which might well induce counsel to believe letters, was known or in any way communicated to Sir that the letter might be but an artful trick of Pigott's to Charles Russell or to any of the other counsel or me, and it
prevent the Times getting the evidence he would feel bound was only after Pigott's Alight, when Mr. Soames was put into the box, that they were produced for the first time-namely,
to give when on oath. Therefore, we are of opinion that on February 26. The only letter between Mr. Soames and
more point is made of the letter than the incident will Pigott referred to before Pigott's flight was the one offered in sustain. On the other hand, we are bound to say that, if evidence by the Attorney-General on February 20, the moment it were established that Sir Richard ought to have handed before Pigott was called into the box.
the letter to Sir Charles Russell, we cannot for a moment What occurred on that occasion is best shown by the admit that its presence among a large bundle of letters following transcript from the official shorthand notes:
called for under a formal and general notice, and for other The Attorney-General: Before Mr. Pigott comes, I put in the letter that Sir Charles Russell called for on November 15,
purposes, would be sufficient. We do not at the present 1888, from Mr. Soames to Mr. Richard Pigott-the arrange
moment remember whether the period was stated at which ment in writing.
Sir Richard became aware of Pigott's statement that he Sir Charles Russell : I said I would wish that put in when had forged the letters. Mr. Pigott was in the box.
The Attorney-General: As a matter of fact, you did not. If you say so now, it is another matter.
I give it to my
MR. VIDLER, the defendant in an action brought by the learned friend now. Sir Charles Russell : I said so at the end of my cross.
principal and antients of Barnard's Inn, for alleged slander examination.
to the title to the property, was before Mr. Justice Kay, in The Attorney-General: When you called for it Mr. Soames Chambers, yesterday. An order was made, giving the was in the box, and you asked for it, and rather complained defendant leave to amend his defence and counter-claim, of our not having it at the time.
and mutual discovery was directed. The litigation has Sir Charles Russell: No. The Attorney-General : It is not worth discussing, however.
reference to the power to sell Barnard's Inn, in Holborn, My lords, I tender it at any time.
which Mr. Vidler, as a law student, has opposed in a publicAfter this discussion Pigott was immediately called.
spirited manner worthy of all praise. We hope the profesThe letter of November 15, 1888, above mentioned, is not
sion and the public will support Mr. Vidler. We shall proa letter from Pigott to Mr. Soames, but from Mr. Soames to bably have occasion to refer to the matter again.
advertised his preparations as “ Ashton's Great Cures." THE TEMPLE NEWSPAPER LAW
Defendant at first advertised and sold his preparations as
manufactured by Warner, successor to Ashton; but after-
wards changed his style, calling them, e.g.,“ Warner's Gout
Safe Cure for Rheumatism,” meaning, as appeared from the
letter, plaintiff's preparation; in response to which defendant
had simply sent his own preparation. Plaintifr's preparations HUXLEY (PAUPER) v. West LONDON EXTENSION RAILWAY
were sold at 45. 6d., defendant's at 25. 9d., per bottle. Stirling COMPANY.—R.S.C., Order 65, Rule 1.—"Good Cause" for De
(J.), holding that defendant was advertising and selling his priving Successful Plaintiff of his Costs.-Extortionate Demand preparations in such a way as to mislead the public, and made by Plaintiff.–Certificate made subsequently to Judgment.
derive benefit from the plaintiff's reputation for his preWhether Functus Officio.-Question Reserved. Plaintiff brought parations, granted an interlocutory injunction, restraining action for injury sustained, while a passenger on defendants'
him, &c. Held (by Cotton, Lindley and Lopes, L.JJ.): That railway, by reason of defendants' servants' negligence. De.
the interlocutory injunction had been rightly granted, there fendants denied negligence, pleaded contributory negligence, being, on the evidence as it stood, a strong probability of the and denied that plaintiff was injured as alleged. He claimed
plaintiff's success at the tria £3,000. At trial, the jury gave plaintiff a verdict, with damages
GILLMAN AND SPENCER (Lim.) v. CARBUTT AND CO.-Principal £50, for which sum Lord Coleridge (L.C.J.) gave judgment
and Fraudulent Agent.-Broker Making Subsequent Contract.for plaintiff. Counsel for defendants applied to the L.C.J., under Order 65, rule 1, to give a certificate depriving plaintiff
Issue of Delivery Order under first supposed Contract.-Repre.
sentation of Fact or Intention.—Estoppel.-Defendants, rice of his costs, on the ground that his demand was extortionate. The L.C.J. intimated that he should deprive the plaintiff of
merchants, agreed, February 6, 1888, with F., a rice broker, his costs if the matter rested with him ; but declined to certify,
to sell plaintiffs 1,000 bags of rice, &c., prompt day, April 6 : on the ground that the Court of Appeal had decided that
Sold note was given by F.to defendants, and contract entered
in his book. Plaintiffs had no knowledge of the transaction, what was “good cause" for depriving a plaintiff of his costs was for them to determine, and referred defendants' counsel
and F.no authority from them to make the contract. March
21, F. agreed to sell to plaintiffs same quantity and quality of to Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal remitted the application to the L.C.J., on the ground that they had no power to
rice, and the following day obtained a delivery order addressed
to superintendent at defendants' warehouse, under contract certify, though they had to decide whether “good cause
February 6, which he handed to plaintiffs, obtaining their such an order existed, if it had been made. Lord Coleridge
acceptance at two months, which he discounted and abscon ded, then certified, depriving plaintiff of his costs. Held (by Lord Halsbury, L.C., and Lords Watson, Bramwell, Fitzgerald,
The delivery order had “C., 6-2-88," on its face. March 26, Herschell and Macnaghten), affirming decision of Court of plaintiffs sent to defendants' warehouse a stencil plate bear: Appeal: That Lord Coleridge was not functus officio on pro
ing letters “G. and S.," and a letter asking that the bags
might be marked. Foreman said he would see to it. They nouncing judgment, and that he had power subsequently to certify as he did; also, that “good cause" for certifying
were, however, not marked. April 6, defendants, not having re.
ceived payment, sent in their invoice requesting payment, and existed.
plaintiffs informed them they had paid F. April 9, plaintiffs COURT OF APPEAL.
demanded delivery; it was refused, and this action brought, DIMMOCK V. RandaLL.-Action by Landlord against Tenant
claiming rice or its value and damages for detention. Hud. for Mining Royalties.-Defence : Settled Account.-- Reply: Fraud.
dleston (B.) gave judgment for defendants. Held (by Lord -Compulsory Reference to Official Referee.-Judicature Act, 1873,
Esher, M.R., Fry and Lopes, L.JJ.): That the defendants Sect. 57.-Right to Trial in Open Court of Charge of Fraud.
were not estopped as against the plaintiffs by reason of the Intricate Inquiry.-Action by landlord for royalties due from
dealings of F. with the delivery order, which bore on its face tenant, a brick manufacturer. Defence: Account settled, and
a reference to a supposed contract other than that under no indebtedness since then. Reply: That if accounts had
which plaintiffs claimed; also that, apart from that, the been settled to a given date, as alleged, he was entitled to
delivery order was no more than a representation of inten. re-open them, on the ground that they were based on false
tion; and that the appeal must be dismissed. and fraudulent statements of defendant. At trial, Manisty SLAZENGER AND Sons v. FelthAM AND CO.-Trade Mark.(J.) referred case to Official Referee, under Judicature Act, 1873, Sect. 57. Defendant appealed. Held (by Lord Esher,
Infringement of.—“Demon” “ Demotic” Applied to same Kind
of Article in same Manner.-Calculated to Deceive and Mislead.M.R., and Fry, L.J.): That the case was not one involving so
Injunction.- Plaintiffs registered “Demon," coupled with a intricate an inquiry, that defendant should be deprived of his
face and the words trade mark, as a trade mark for right to have the charge of fraud which had been persisted in tried in open Court; the charges of fraud and question of
their racquets. They claimed an injunction to restrain the settled account should be tried in open Court.
defendants from using the word "demotic" on racquets
manufactured by them. The word was stamped by defend. PRICE AND Co. v. Ai SHIPS SMALL DAMAGE INSURANCE ants on their racquets in the same place as on plaintiffs', and COMPANY LIMITED.--Action on Marine Policy.-“Warranted the racquets were of the same shape. Kekewich (J.) granted Free from Average under £3 per cent., unless General.”—Whether an injunction. Held (by Cotton, Lindley and Bowen, L.JJ.): Particular Damage could be added to General, to make Amount That the decision of Kekewich (J.) must be affirmed; for that exceed the Percentage.--Action by plaintiffs on policy on ship, the use of the word “demotic," in the circumstances, must effected June 1, 1885. Policy covered, inter alia, "all losses have been intended to, and was calculated to, mislead the which cannot be recovered under an ordinary Lloyd's or
public. similar policy of insurance, by reason of the insertion of the clause, “Warranted free from average under £3 per cent.,
CHANCERY DIVISION. unless general, or the ship be stranded, sunk, or burnt.''
In re GANGE.-MUMMERY V. GANGE.—Mortmain.--Gift to Ship in question, on voyage made directly afterwards, had bad weather, rendering certain general average sacrifices
Charity by Will.-Bond issued under Dover Corporation Sea
Defences Act, 1877.-Impure Personalty.-A Bond, issued under necessary. She sustained also particular average damage not included in general average. She had not been stranded,
the Dover Corporation Sea Defences Act, 1877, empowering
the Corporation to issue debenture bonds for loans to them, sunk, or burnt, and amount of particular average alone was under £3 per cent., though, if added to that contributed for
the repayment being charged on their district fund, general
district rates, and certain monies payable by instalments in general average, the whole would exceed £3 per cent. Plaintiffs contended their loss was covered by defendants' policy.
respect of private improvements, is “impure personalty,”
and cannot, therefore, be bequeathed to a charity. So Held Cave (J.) gave judgment for the plaintiffs. Held (by Lord Esher, M.R., Bowen and Fry, L.JJ.): That the particular
(by Kay, J.). average loss could not be added to the general average loss,
In re ROPER.-MORRELL V. GISSING.–Testator.--Will.so that the total would exceed the percentage rate, and that
Bequest of Share of Child Dying Without Issue unto “ Survivors" plaintiffs were therefore entitled to recover from defendants.
of my said Children.-Share of last Surviving Child.-Passing
under Residuary Gift or to Personal Representatives of last Survive Warner v. WARNER.—"Warner's Safe Cure for Rheumatism.” ing Child.—Testator, on death of each of his children, gave a -Sale by Defendant of “Warner's Gout and Rheumatic Cures.” fourth part of certain funds to the children of such deceased -Misleading Public, and Appropriating Benefit of Plaintiff's child, and, " in the event of either of my said children dying Reputation.-Injunction.—Plaintiff was manufacturer and sole without issue, I give the fourth part (above referred to) unto proprietor of medical preparations, introduced in 1879 as the survivors of my said children in equal shares and propor.
Warner's Safe Cures." By extensive advertising and con- tions.” There were four children, and the last surviving siderable sale, they had become known in the market, child died without issue. Held (by Chitty, J.): That the shortly, as "Warner's Cures.". Defendant, whose name was share of the deceased child went to his personal repre. Warner, had purchased a business previously carried on by sentatives, and did not pass under the residuary clause in Ashton, who carried on a similar business to plaintiff, and testator's will.
AREA OF THE NEW COUNTY OF
Stoke Newington, Saint Mary
Liberty of the Rolls
Paul, Covent Garden
St. Peter) Westminster, St. James Westminster, St. Margaret and St. John the Evangelist
(City of Westminster.) Whitechapel District, including
Katherine, Precinct of
► Mary, Whitechapel Woolwich.
The City is not included in the New County. It remains a separate county,5 1 and 52 Vict., c. 41, s. 40, . $ 3. It may be conveniently designated as The Old County, or simply The City.
PARISHES AND PLACES.
St. John's, Horselydown
George in the East
St. Giles in the Fields
Ditto. St. Thomas
To the Editor of PUMP COURT. Sir,—Now that the Attorney-General has met, seriatim, all the monstrous charges recently made against his professional honour, ought not the Bar, as a whole, to express its indig. nation at those charges, and sympathy with him against whom they have been made. I would suggest that some such resolution as the following should be signed by every member of the Bar who values his profession more than his political party:
“That the undersigned desire to express their Indignation at the unwarrantable and unjustifiable attacks made, for party purposes, on the professional honour of Sir Richard Webster, in his capacity of Attorney-General, and to assure him of the perfect confidence they entertain in his professional conduct."
Your wider experience will be able to alter and amend this resolution into a better shape, but I certainly think that, commencing with the Benchers, some such resolution should be signed by every member of the Bar.
FREDERICK MCDERMOTT. March 23, 1889.
Mr. JOHN AMHERST PHILPOTT has been appointed Joint Registrar, with Mr. Joseph Munn Mace, of the County Court holden at Tenterden and Cranbrook, in the place of the late Mr. Stephen Weller, who was sole Registrar at Tenterden. There will in future be a County Court office at Messrs. Philpott and Callaway's office, at Cranbrook, as well as at Tenterden.
Mr. Thomas THELWELL KELLY has been elected President of the Cheshire and North Wales Incorporated Law Society for the ensuing year. Admitted in 1861. He is clerk of the peace for Flintshire, and clerk to the county magistrates for the Mold, Hope, Hawarden, and Northop divisions.
Mr. CHARLES ANTHONY BRANSON has been elected President of the Sheffield District Incorporated Law Society for the ensuing year. Mr. Branson is vice-consul at Sheffield for the United States of America. Admitted in 1853.
Mr. Thomas William HUGHES, solicitor, has been ap. pointed Registration Agent to the Flintshire Conservative Association. Admitted in 1883.
THE PARNELL COMMISSIONERS.
MR. JUSTICE SMITH.
, in the county of Sussex. After a involved an important point of construction of a bill of careful preparatory education, Mr. Smith entered the lading; Dahl v. Nelson, Donkin and others (in the House of University of Cambridge, at Trinity College, where he Lords); Sewell v. Sewell and nephew; Kish v. Cory and graduated B.A. in 1858. Two years previously he had others; and many more. He was very frequently engaged in entered himself of the Inner Temple, and on taking his licensing cases. As specimens of patent cases, we may degree he at once began to read in chambers under the refer to Napier's Patent and Adair's Patent-both before discreet eye of Mr. (now Justice) Chitty. Indeed, we believe the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Important Mr. A. L. Smith was the very first on the long roll of Chitty's commercial cases before the Judicial Committee were distinguished (and undistinguished) pupils. He then passed Willans v. Ayres, on appeal from the Supreme Court of through the chambers of old Mr. Thomas Chitty, of kindly South Australia ; Citizens' Insurance Company of Canada memory, where he widened and deepened his foundations, v. Parsons, and the Queen Insurance Company v. Parsons, and began to build up. Mr. A. L. Smith next removed to in which he fought by the side of Sir John Holker; and the chambers of Mr. (now Justice) Hannen, where he not Musgrave v. Pulido (Captain-General and Governor-inonly saw plenty of work and how work should be done, Chief of the Island of Jamaica), on appeal from the but enjoyed the intellectual companionship of Mr. Supreme Court of Jamaica, involving important points as Charles (now Lord Justice)
to the powers of governors Bowen, and Mr. Farrer
of colonies. In the last (now Lord Chancellor)
mentioned case Mr. Smith Herschell, who were his
was again lieutenant to Sir fellow pupils. Meantime
John Holker, who left him Mr. A. L. Smith had been
to reply to Mr. Farrer (now called to the Bar at the
Lord Chancellor) HerInner Temple in 1860.
schell. From the Court He chose the Home Cir
of Appeal we may cite the cuit, where he soon con
South - Eastern Railway stituted himself a prime
Company v. The Railway personal favourite with the
Commissioners, in which whole mess, and drew to
Mr. Smith contended on himself a very well de
behalf of the Railway served share of the busi
Commissioners, with Sir ness that happened to be
Hardinge Giffard (ex-Lord going. His early successes,
Chancellor Halsbury). Rehowever, did not in any
markable cases in the Lords degree quench his ardent
were Enraght v. Lord Pen. attachment to field sports,
sance ; The Capital and especially to cricket.
Counties Bank v. Henty When Mr. Hannen was
(twice argued); and the appointed by Sir Roundell
very exceptional strain of Palmer Attorney-General's
Mackonochie v. Lord Pen“ devil,” Mr. A. L. Smith
zance (seven days) and became devil to him in
Castro v. the Queen (Ben. turn, acting in this capa
jamin leading for Castro) city from 1863 to 1868,
in one week. Mr. Smith when Mr. Hannen was
appeared in no fewer than raised to the Bench. He
five Stroud and three Durthen plodded on by him
ham election petitions, not self till, early in 1879, Sir
to mention more. The John Holker appointed
very remarkable Probate him' Attorney-General's
case of the will of Mr. Devil. This post he re
Hall, late magistrate at tained for a little over four
Bow Street, ought to be years, when Lord Selborne
Of criminal cases, invited him, on April 12,
it will suffice to mention 1883, to become a Justice
the cases of the West of of the Queen's Bench Di
England Bank Directors, vision of the High Court.
Catherine Webster, HanApart from the dignity of
nah Dobbs, Lefroy, and the new position, we have
Bravo ; in the last-named, a shrewd suspicion that it was a grateful change ; for, Mr. A. L. Smith appeared, with Serjeant Parry, for Dr. Gully. as a rule, the pleasure a man feels on release from the Sir A. L. Smith married, in 1867, Isobel, eldest daughter office of devil” is only paralleled by the pleasure of of Mr. John Charles Fletcher, of Dale Park, Sussex, J.P., receiving the appointment. But this, by way of speculation. D.L. There is no judge on the Bench that enjoys a more Mr. Justice A. L. Smith was elected an honorary Bencher sure and unostentatious popularity than Mr. Justice Smith; of his Inn immediately upon his elevation to the Bench. and close observers agree that he manifests a continuous He never took silk.
improvement which they would not be surprised to see The life of a "devil" is, ex hypothesi, one perpetual rewarded in due time by a higher promotion still. grind. The cases in which Mr. A, L. Smith figured, there. To say that Mr. Justice A. L. Smith is an ornament to fore, are legion: are they not written in the Law Reports ? the English Bench would be a trite commonplace; it is If we name a few here and there in a busy career, it is but nevertheless the simple fact. as the merest specimens and reminders, both of the nature Sir Charles Russell's opening, when the Commission and the extent of his arduous labours. His name occurs resumes, is looked forward to with great interest. We have in numerous shipping cases of an important character-e.g., no doubt the Court will be crowded, and there can be no Gray v. Carr, in which he seconded Watkin Williams, in question that the brilliant Counsel will be well worth opposition to Sir George Honeyman; Fraser and others listening to.
MR. THOMAS THOMPSON ON HY. frequently brings me three or four hundred letters, and the
“ Speaking roughly, everywhere. My first morning post DRAULIC MINES AS A FINANCIAL day, some two or three hundred telegrams, but I manage INVESTMENT.
to cope with them all by the aid of my shorthand-clerks.
“Are your office hours long?”
“Not so far as the public are concerned, but my own The atmosphere of Angel Court, Throgmorton Street, is
work is often not completed until midnight, and sometimes redolent of money. One seems to hear the crackle of
it carries me on well into the morning. Like a woman's crisp bank-notes and the jingling of gold in the very sound
work, as the old saying goes, it is never done.” of its name, and it is here that Mr. Thomas Thompson,
“I suppose, however, the result more than repays you ? " the well-known outside-broker and authority upon mines
"Well, I have no cause to complain. And I am glad and mining, has his office. A plain, workmanlike office it
to say that my clients have, perhaps, even less. They is, too, and when our representative called to obtain some
have been very succesful, especially of late. There has of Mr. Thompson's views upon the particular field of finance
been quite a boom in mining shares, and naturally, my which he has made his own, the first impression given by
clients have stood in for many a good thing.” the place and its surroundings was that it was essentially a
“I thought the monied public were very shy of mining centre of business. Nor was this impression lessened when
speculations ?" in due course PUMP Court was ushered into the presence
"They were, without doubt, but they have to a large of the presiding genius of the place.
extent, outgrown that feeling. They seem to have begun “Busy? Well, I'm always busy. But I shall be pleased
to understand that gold and silver and copper and jewels to have a chat with you. Now, what can I tell you?” and
must come from somewhere. Upon my word, to hear some the popular mining broker settled himself in his chair for
people talk of mining exploits, one would think that what women call a good, comfortable gossip.
diamond rings and gold watch-chains grew ready-made. "I want to know something of the kind of business you
I believe it is really only of late years that the average transact, Mr. Thompson. I believe it is almost unique,
member of the public has quite understood that the original and that you are the man par excellence to tell me some
diamonds and the virgin gold, must have, at some time or thing about mining exploits, and the place they occupy in
other, come from the bowels of the earth, and that fortunes the financial world.”
have been, and are still to be, made by the judicious pro“I daresay I can tell you something. I ought to be able
spector who knows where to find them and how to extract to do so, for I have had eighteen years of it. Yes,” con
them when they have been found.” tinued the broker, reflectively, “it is just about eighteen
“Then I suppose business is growing in this direction years since the floating of the Malpaso Company, which was
rather than the reverse ?” afterwards developed into the big undertaking now worked
“ Certainly. I am in a position to judge, because I feel by the Colombian Hydraulic Company. It was that which
the pulse of the public, not only from John o' Groat's to first drew my attention to hydraulic mining, and from that
Land's End, but even abroad, as I have a considerable day to this I have devoted my special attention to it. I
number of Continental clients. Indeed, I suppose I have was convinced that even when the output of gold was un
as lengthy a roll of clients as any man in the City.” satisfactory, there were often cases in which mines might
“Do your clients consult much with you personally, Mr. still prove highly profitable properties by working the gravel Thompson ?” alone, provided the cost of working was kept within the
“No. It would not do. In the first place, it would narrowest possible limits. The hydraulic system, which
swallow up far too much of my time; in the second, I am had already proved highly successful in California, supplied not eager to give advice in that manner; and, in the third, just the facilities which seemed to me to be needful, and the
they can get virtually all the advice I can give them out of result has justified my judgment."
my Circular. My Circular is my advice, and I can assure "I suppose your principal business is in mines of this you that I spare no pains in making it as complete and description?"
authoritative as possible. The preparation of each Circular “Yes. Of course I deal in every class of security, but
that I issue involves days of the closest application upon my chief transactions are in mines.' I am not a speculative my part-there are so many calculations to be made, so broker, and do not deal on the cover system; and I think I
many details to be investigated, so many points to be duly may fairly say that I satisfy my clients, for, when once they and scrupulously weighed.” come, they seem to stick to me."
“I suppose you are able to get a good deal of clerical “Are they numerous, and where do they come from ?" “Very. I have over five thousand regular clients upon
Yes, but of course that is to a great extent almost my books, to whom every issue of my Circular is mailed mechanical. And, with a daily growing business like mine, directly it leaves the printers'. Then, in addition to these,
it is no easy task to train new clerks into our own ways; and I commonly send out through the post another hundred you know how important that is, if business is to be conthousand or so ; and by this means introduce myself to the
ducted with anything like success. And here I would take rest of the public who as yet have had no transactions with the opportunity of mentioning that in sending out my me.”
Circular, I invariably make a point of posting to my own “ The labour must be enormous."
regular clients earliest, as I consider it only fair to give “ It is heavy, as you may judge, when I tell you that the
them the first chance of standing in in a good thingPost:office vans are sent to the printers' for the Circulars, but, with all my efforts, I fear that sometimes I disappoint and that each issue usually weighs from five to seven tons."
one here or there, as it is quite impossible, with so many to " And do you write the Circular yourself?”
deal with, to ensure unerring exactitude and punctuality in “ All that is original in it. My clients, and, in fact, the
the Post Office. I do the best that I can, sparing no time public at large, get the full benefit of my experience. When or pains to serve my clients well, and I must say that they they have read my Circular, they can, if they choose, of appreciate it by sticking to me year after year." course, act upon my advice and yet ignore me—doing “ To return for a moment to the special class of undertheir business through their own broker.
But I do not
taking with which you have identified yourself, Mr. Thompthink many of the recipients would do any such shabby son—I mean hydraulic mines--do you consider the outlook trick. Besides, it pays them to come to me. They can
of the Colombian enterprises promising ?” buy and sell more cheaply through me than through an
“ Most promising. There is a fine navigable river, the ordinary inside broker."
Magdalena, as the main approach ; the climate is equable “How is that? And how can you afford to work more
and healthy; it is mountainous, so that the hydraulic power cheaply than your rival inside the House?”
is of the finest, and an important point is that the "Simply thus,” said Mr. Thompson, quietly. "I deal at mining industry is regarded as the backbone of the country. nett prices, and charge no brokerage whatever ; the margin The great advantage of hydraulic mining is that you utilise between the buying and the selling price giving me my
a purely natural force in your work, the disintegration of profit."
the auriferous ground being effected very much in the way "And where do your clients come from, Mr. Thomp- --if I may use so homely a metaphor—as a fire-hose
When the auriferous son?”
might be used to disperse a mob.