WHISKY FOR AMERICA

Evening Star, Issue 20119, 8 March 1929, Page 7

WHISKY FOR AMERICA

• AN ILLEGAL ADVENTURE Lords Justices SeruUon, Lawrence,and Saukcy, in the Court of Appeal in London recently, gave their reserved judgment on the appeal of Mm E. A. Lindsay, a whisky merchant, of Mark Lane, Loudon, E.C., and Perih, front the judgment of Mr Justice Wright in' tho King’s Bench Division in three actions arising out of an unsuccessful 1 scheme to slug 7,500 cases of Scotch: whisky to America, and sell it there,lit the first action Sir Harry Foster,MVP., obtained a declaration that a bill of exchange for £5,500 which ha gave was void. Mr Lindsay was a, defendant in that action, and ho was the unsuccessful plaintiff in two other actions which related to bills for £5,500 and £4,812, the defendants being Sir Harry Foster, Mr A. H. Attfield. of Worthing, ami Messrs J. D. Driscoll and A. S. Miller, trading as the Tower, Trading Syndicate, City, E.C. Lord Justice Serutton, giving judgment, said that tho other Lords Juh ticcs took the view that the whole adventure was illegal, and that the court should set aside the judgment of Mr Justice Wright and make no order iui favour of or against any of tho parties or give any one any costs. While ho would like to arrive at the same result , he thought on legal principles, as tho adventure could be carried out legally, or illegally and the parties' bad not agreed bow to carry it out, the court could deal with tho legal matters as if it were carried out legally. A number of parties were concerned,and the transaction was not veiy, creditable to any of them. Ho was satisfied that the court had not been told the truth or the whole truth by anyone concerned. In his opinion, a* Sir Harry Foster had not given a valid bill, lie was liable to damages lor, broad) of contract, which would ap-. pear to Ire tho amount of the bill. With regard to tho other bill bo thought that Mr Attfield was not bound by it, because it was not tho bill which the agreement contemplated. Lord Justice Lawrenct said that the documents were drawn up for the purpose of dressing in legal garb an illegal adventure. It was plainly established by tho evidence that the importation of alcohol into the United States was illegal, and the parties in this case, with knowledge of tho«» laws, embarked on the adventure with the object of making a. _ large profit in violation of the laws of that country--They hoped to make a; profit estimated at £IB,OOO by the illicit sale of'whisky, in New York.

If the real nature of the adventure were as ho had .said, it would, ho au illegal partnership, and none of tho documents would be enforceable in any, court in this country. It would-fur-nish just cause for complaint by tho United States Government, would ho contrary to our international obligations, and would offend against our' notions of public morality. Having arrived at the conclusion that the whole adventure was illegal,, he thought the orders made in tho court below ought to he discharged, and the actions and counter-claims dismissed without any order as.to.tho costs of any of the parties, either in the court below or the Court of A. 114 peal. Lord Justice Snnkey said that ho thought the courts of this country ought not to entertain actions-of this character. The whole adventure was illegal, and all the actions in the court below should have been dismissed.'' ■ Lord Justice Lawrence said that tho effect of the judgments was'that-the actions and counter-diaims' ail'd'tho anneals were dismissed without .costs.