Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
Deane, C.J.
This is a case stated by the Police Magistrate, Mr. Brace.
The matter arises out of a civil suit in which the plaintiff Kisseadoo, who is a Barrister-at-Law practising in the Courts of the Colony, sued the defendant one Tandoh to recover £100, an amount which he alleged to be due to him on a promissory note signed in his favour by Tandoh. Tandoh denied owing anything; he alleged that the plaintiff by fraud had obtained from him the sum of £200 of which he had paid the sum of £100 by cheque and given the promissory note for the balance, £100; and he counterclaimed for the sum of £100 paid by cheque. The fraud alleged by Tandoh was that while he was being detained in prison in Accra on a political charge it was represented to him by the plaintiff that he had heard from one Mr. Brockman, a District Commissioner,
whose counsel he was, all about Tandoh's case; that he had consequently had a confidential interview with the AttorneyGeneral and if Tandoh would pay him £500 he would undertake to effect his release-that he Tandoh thereupon called plaintiff's attention to the fact that he had previously petitioned the Governor to no effect but was assured by plaintiff that he could believe what plaintiff said as a practitioner of long standing, and thereupon relying on plaintiff's promise that he could secure his release he handed the plaintiff a cheque for £100 and the promissory note in question.
The plaintiff a couple of days later attended at the gaol and got Tandoh to swear to an affidavit which he used in support of a letter which he wrote to the Honourable Colonial Secretary on 30th July, 1929, asking that His Excellency the Governor should be pleased to reconsider Tandoh's case and release him.
On 14th August, 1929, a reply was forwarded to this letter by the Acting Colonial Secretary stating that the Governor was not prepared to reconsider his decision in the matter.
On 9th September, 1929, Tandoh, seeing that he was not to be released, got his brother to write a letter to the plaintiff demanding the return of the £100 already paid and asking to be informed what fees he had to pay in connection with the affidavit. No answer seems to have been returned to this letter. The matter apparently then hung fire.
On 25th June, 1930, defendant who had by then been released from prison states he went to plaintiff and demanded the £100 : he was put off with an excuse and next day received a writ claiming the £100 to which in due course he filed his co