Secretary of State for War v Studdert

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 27 March 1901
• Date: 27 March 1901
• Docket Number: (1901. No. 44.)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR

and

STUDDERT

(1901. No. 44.)

Appeal.

Practice — Transfer of action — Action by principal against agent for fraudulent misrepresentation, accounts, and for negligence — Transfer to King's Bench Division — The King suing by Secretary of State.

Attorney-General to the Prince of Wales v. CrossmanELR L. R. 1 Ex. 381.

Attorney-General v. Constable 4 Ex. Div. 172.

Attorney-General v. Edmunds L. R. 6Eq. 381.

Attorney-General v. VernonENR 1 Vern. 277

Boyd v. PhelanUNK 17 L. R. Ir. 538.

Burgess v. Wheate 1 Wm. Blackstone, 123.

Cannot v. MorganELR 1 Ch. D. 1.

Cohen V. Kusche 16 Times Rep. 489.

De Bussche v. AltELR 8 Ch. D. 286.

East India Company v. Henchman 1 Ves. Jun. 287.

Electric Supply CompanyELR [1891] 2 Ch. 551.

Hovenden v. Millhoff 16 Times Rep. 506.

Kimber v. BarberELR L. R. 8 Ch. 56.

Lister v. StubbsELR 45 Ch. D. 1.

Massey v. Davies 2 Ves. Jun. 317.

Mayor of Salford v. LeverELR [1891] 1 Q. B. 168.

Phosphate Sewage Company v. HartmontELR 5 Ch. D. 394.

Walsh v. RyanIR [1895] 1 Ir. 504.

346 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1901. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR v. STUDDERT (1). (1901. No. 44.) Practice—Transfer of action—Action by principal against agent for frauduÂlent misrepresentation, accounts, and for negligence—Transfer to King's Bench Division—The King suing by Secretary of State. An action was brought in the Chancery Division by the Secretary of State for War against S. for damages for fraudulent breach of duty in inducing the Government to make excessive payments for horses purchased by him as purchasing agent, for fraudulently misrepresenting the prices at which they were purchased, for negligent conduct in purchasing horses unfit for service, and for an account of all profits made as such agent. There were five other defendants against whom damages were claimed for conspiracy in assisting in the fraudulent acts. Two of the defendants moved to transfer the action to the King's Bench Division, and Chatterton, V.-C., granted the appliÂcation : Held, that, without deciding the question of a prerogative right in the Crown to choose in which Court it will proceed, the action could be more conÂveniently tried in the Chancery Division. APPEAL by the plaintiff from an order of Chatterton, V.-C., dated the 11th March, 1901, transferring the action to the King's Bench Division. This action arose from certain orders given by, or on behalf of, the War Department to purchase horses for the Imperial Yeomanry for the war in South Africa. By Royal Warrant dated 24th December, 1899, Queen Victoria authorised the formation of a corps of Imperial Yeomanry. By instructions of the Secretary of State for War, issued under the authority of the Army Act, it was directed that the Imperial Yeomanry should be administered by a committee of seven persons, to each of whom was assigned his own special department. Colonel Alfred G. Lucas was the officer who had general supervision, and the department of providing reÂmounts was entrusted to Colonel St. Quintin. On the 8th January, (1) Before LORD ASHBOURNE, C., and FITZ GIBBON, and WALKER, L.M. VOL. I.] CHANCERY DIVISION. 347 WAR asking him to go and inspect horses at Waterford and Dublin on SECRETARY the terms of £2 a-day, and expenses. C. W. Studdert telegraphed v. STUDDERT. in reply accepting the offer. On the 9th January, Colonel St. Quintin wrote a letter of instructions to Studdert, and some further letters and telegrams were written and sent, by which Studdert was authorised to purchase horses at a maximum price of £30, and of a certain standard of height and quality. It was also recommended to him to deal as much as possible, and if he could, exclusively, with two named horse-dealers, Widger of Waterford, and Meleady of Dublin. Acting upon these instructions, C. W. Studdert, and those acting with him, purchased during the months of February and March, 1900, 1001 horses, for all of which the maximum price of £30 was charged to the Government. It was averred by the plaintiff that several of these horses were purchased at prices much below the sum of £30, and that several of the horses were of an inferior class as regards quality, strength, and condition. The action was brought as stated in the endorsement on the writ by the Secretary of State for War, and Alfred G. Lucas (suing on behalf of himself and other members of the Imperial Yeomanry Committee) against Charles W. Studdert, John A. Studdert, Thomas Studdert, Wilfred Fletcher, J. W. Gregg, and John Widger, and the plaintiffs' claim was Against the defendant, Charles Washington Studdert, as purchasing agent of Her Majesty's Government through the War Department of horses for the public service, for 1. Damages for fraudulent breach of duty in inducing Her Majesty's Government, through the Imperial Yeomanry Committee of the War DepartÂment, to make excessive payments for a large number of horses purchased by him as such agent by falsely and fraudulently misrepresenting to the said Committee the names of the persons from whom and the prices for which the said horses had been purchased. 2. Damages for false and fraudulent misrepresentations that he had purchased large numbers of said horses for prices largely in excess of the sums which were paid for same. 3. Damages for negligent conduct as such agent in examining and 2 E 2 THE IRISH REPORTS. [1901. purchasing for the public service horses which were wholly unfit for the purposes for which, to his knowledge, they were required. 4. An account of all profits made by the said defendant in the course of his said employment as such agent and in relation to his inspection, examinaÂtion, and purchase of horses for the said War Department. The plaintiffs claimed against all the defendants and each of them, 5. Damages for that they conspired and combined together to defraud Her Majesty's Government through the said War Department by aiding and assisting in the fraudulent breach of duty and wrongful acts of the defendant, Charles W. Studdert, above mentioned, and 6. For that they conspired and combined together to procure large and exÂcessive payments from the said War Department through the Imperial Yeomanry Committee by falsely and fraudulently representing that large numbers of horses had been purchased through the agency of the said Charles W. Studdert from persons from whom they were not purchased, and for prices largely in excess of the prices actually paid for same, and 7. Damages for that the defendants conspired and combined together to obtain from Her Majesty's Government through the said War Department large sums of money by falsely and fraudulently pretending that a large number of horses supplied to the Government had been purchased by the defendant, Charles W. Studdert, at a price of £30 for each horse, whereas in fact said horses had been purchased at much less than £30, the defendants or some of them agreeing with the defendant, Charles W. Studdert, to divide the difference between them in certain proportions, and 8. An account of all secret profits made by the defendants and each of them by reason of such corrupt and fraudulent agreement and conspiracy. The defendants by their defences, which were delivered after the motion to transfer the action had been moved, denied the fraudulent acts with which they were charged, and also the charge of conspiracy. It appeared that on the 7th December, 1900, a writ was...