We're not too sure who this Thomas WINGATE is. But he died in on June 2nd 1838, aged 60 [see DEATH notice], and left a will which names his wife (Ann) and a brother (William). He also attempts to leave something to his mistress by whom he has had two children (a girl aged 22 and a boy aged 17). So the allegations of his having left his wife for another woman are patently true.
As to the rest of the story, it would seem to be six of one and half a dozen of the other whether you should believe either WINGATE's or BOND's version of events. I have not yet found out any more about this matter but I will be creating a special strays page for Thomas and transcribing his will (in the fullness of time).
Court Of King's Bench, Westminster, Jan. 31, 1829
(Sittings in Banco.)
IN THE MATTER OF THOMAS BERKELEY BOND, GENT.
Sir JAMES SCARLETT and Mr. CHITTY showed cause against a rule obtained by Mr. CAMPBELL, for striking off the roll of attornies of the Court, Thomas Berkeley BOND, who had been admitted an attorney in the year 1818. The grounds on which the rule had been obtained were - first, that Mr. Bond had not duly served his articles of clerkship pursuant to the 22nd GEORGE II., c.44.; and secondly, that he had been irregularly admitted, no certificate of service from his master having been produced. The principal affidavits on which the application was made were those of Mr. Thomas WINGATE, an attorney of Plymouth, and a Mr. Timothy CASSEN.
The affidavit of Mr. WINGATE stated that Mr. BOND was in the year 1811 articled to him for five years; that at the end of the first 16 months of his service, BOND left Plymouth and went to Bath to see his friends, and that on his return, owing to his turn of mind and general pursuits, his attendance at the office became very irregular; that he ceased to board with Mr. WINGATE as he had formerly done, that he was frequently absent from Mr. WINGATE's service without leave, and that he eventually left such service, without having served his clerkship agreeably to the articles. Mr. WINGATE further stated that on his (BOND's) application to be admitted an attorney, he (WINGATE) did not give any certificate of his having served his clerkship, or in any way assist him in getting admitted.
From the affidavit of Mr. CASSEN it appeared that that person had a claim upon Mr. BOND of upwards of 200l., and that he had instituted proceedings against him in the Court of Exchequer; that he had arrested him on proxies from that Court, but had been defeated in his proceedings by BOND's having sworn that he was a certificated attorney. The affidavit went on to state, that BOND had never practised as an attorney, but had taken out his certificate merely as a protection against arrests; that he was well known on the turf as a betting man; and that he carried his certificate about with him to the different races, and when arrested for debt he produced it to the officers/
The learned counsel stated that the application to strike Mr. BOND off the roll had been made at the instance of Mr. CASSEN, in consequence of Mr. BOND having refused to accede to his terms of settling some pecuniary transactions between them. Mr. CASSEN had written to Mr. BOND, claiming payment of a debt with interest and costs, and also some costs in Chancery, which Mr. BOND denied that he was entitled to; but Mr. CASSEN had told him that "if he was wise" he would settle immediately. He had however, refused to pay the costs, and therefore the present application had been made against him. Mr. BOND had now made an affidavit in which he denied the statements in Mr. WINGATE's affidavit, and swore that the reason for his not continuing to board with Mr. WINGATE on his return from Bath was, that Mr. WINGATE had given up housekeeping, had left his wife, and was cohabiting with another woman, with whom he lived in lodgings. He denied that his attendance at the office was irregular or that he was ever absent from his employment without the consent of WINGATE, who, he stated, was a person of low and profligate habits, and so frequently in a state of intoxication, that he was desirous that BOND should attend to the out-door business of the office, he (WINGATE) being unable to conduct it. Mr. BOND also swore that to the best of his remembrance and belief he did not quit the service of Mr. WINGATE until the expiration of his clerkship, and that prior ot his applying to be admitted an attorney in the year 1818, he informed Mr. WINGATE of his intention to apply, and that the latter then stated that he would attend at the Judges' chambers, in order to render him the necessary assistance; but that finding afterwards that he was unable to come to London, he wrote a letter to his agent, in which he requested that every thing necessary might be done in order to procure Mr. BOND's admission. The affidavit of Mr. BOND then went on to state, that Mr. WINGATE's letter was produced by the agent to Mr. PLATT, the clerk of the late Lord Ellenborough, who, on the undertaking of the agent to produce a certificate in the usual form, granted the fiat for admission. Mr. BOND also stated, that WINGATE had never, until the present occasion, alleged that he had been guilty of any irregular or improper conduct during his clerkship, and never stated that there was any objection to his being admitted and practising as an attorney; but, on the contrary, he had some time since proposed to take him into partnership; and as an inducement to him to accede to the proposal, stated that he (WINGATE) had given up his former bad practices, and was now living with his wife.
Mr. CAMPBELL and Mr. CHILTON were heard in support of the rule.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said, that when an application of this kind was made, the Court would look at the source from which it came, - at the motives in which it originated, - and at the time at which it was made. In discharging the rule, the Court would not prevent any future investigation taking place to ascertain whether Mr. BOND had or had not duly served his article of clerkship, and been properly admitted. This application was made after the lapse of ten years from the time of admission and it was made on the affidavits of two persons, WINGATE and CASSEN. it appeared tht CASSEN's reasons for making the application was, that he had been frustrated in obtaining a sum of money which he demanded from BOND. WINGATE might be a tool of CASSEN, and when it was considered that CASSEN acted from a base motive, it might be said of WINGATE, as Lord Kenyon had said under similar circumstances - noscitur a sociis 1 . Mr. WINGATE's affidavit was, besides, vague and unsatisfactory; and if he really had assisted Mr. BOND to procure his admission by a subterfuge, without giving him a certificate, he was not a man particularly worth of credence. As to the circumstances of BOND's ceasing to board and lodge with him, BOND, if what he said was true, had given a very satisfactory reason for it, - which was, that WINGATE had ceased to keep house with his wife, and had gone to live with a loose woman. It was true that no certificate of service had been produced to the judge who signed the fiat for the admission but it was to be observed that although the judges were in the habit of requiring a certificate of due service and approbation from the attorney with whom the person applying for admission had been an articled clerk, that was not necessary by act of Parliament. Looking at the whole of the circumstances, the Court thought that this rule ought to be discharged with costs.
Rule discharged accordingly.
- The Times, Monday, Feb 02, 1829; pg. 4; Issue 13818; col A
Birth, death, marriage notices
June 2, aged 60, Mr. Thos WINGATE, solicitor, of Bristol.
- Trewman's Exeter Flying Post, Thursday, June 14, 1838; Issue