James Hutton Brew, known as Prince Brew of Dunquah [or Dunkwah], was born in 1844, a descendant of Richard Brew, the infamous slave trader of the Gold Coast, now Ghana. He was summonsed before the High Court in England on 29 June 1901, by plaintiff Mr. A. C. Seaton for failing to repay a debt of over £980.
The proceedings of the court were printed in The Times on 1 July 1901, and have been transcribed below. A CD-Rom index of The Times is held by libraries across the world. However, the source of the below article is microfilm of the original newspaper held at the Guildhall Library, Aldermanbury, London, England.
For more information on this family, see the database Brew of Africa.
LAW REPORT, June 29.
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
(Before MR. JUSTICE LAWRENCE)
SEATON V. BREW
In this case the plaintiff, Mr. A. C. Seaton, sued the defendant, Prince Brew of Dunquah, to recover the sum of £983 11s. 10d., being the amount of principal and interest alleged to be due under an indenture of mortgage dated December 8, 1894. The defendant admitted that something was due from him, but denied that the figures set up by the plaintiff represented the amount of his indebtedness.
Mr. Thorn Drury appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Atherley-Jones, K.C., and Mr. Congleton-Smith represented the defendant.
Mr. Thorn Drury, in opening the plaintiff's case, said the defendant was a gentleman known as Prince Brew of Dunquah, a territory on the West Coast of Africa. The parties became acquainted in 1892, and shortly afterwards the plaintiff began to advance money to the defendant. In October 1894, it was thought desirable that there should be some security for the sums advanced, the only securities held by the plaintiff at that time being various charges on certain commercial transactions in which the defendant was interested between his country and the West Coast of Africa. The defendant owned various tracts of land on the West Coast of Africa, where cocoanuts, palm oil, and gold were obtainable; and it was suggested that the security to be given should take the form of a mortgage on these tracts of land, given by the Prince to the plaintiff. The defendant, having been in some way connected with the legal profession in West Africa, drafted the mortgage himself and handed it to the plaintiff. The mortgage recited that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of £400 and blank pounds for the moneys advanced, and provided that interest should be paid at the rate of 25 per cent. The plaintiff pointed out that he had advanced a sum of £399 and had not received any interest upon it, and proposed that the principal amount secured by the mortgage should be increased to about £600 and that the interest should be reduced to 10 per cent. The mortgage was altered accordingly, the amount being fixed at £600 5s., with interest at 10 per cent. The defendant did not pay the amount due from him, and after some correspondence a bankruptcy notice was issued against him. In one of his letters to the plaintiff the defendant said "that Prince John hoped when things had quieted down the other side to get the king to do something substantial for you." The king in question, said Mr. Thorn Drury, was Prempeh, and the prospect of his doing something substantial for the plaintiff or anybody else was rather remote. The defendant expressed his regret at not being able to pay the plaintiff, and asked that the bankruptcy proceedings might be held over. This was done, but, the defendant having taken no steps towards discharging the plaintiff's claim, the present action was brought.
The plaintiff having been examined and cross-examined by Mr. Atherley-Jones, it was arranged that there should be judgment for the plaintiff for £700 and costs.
His Lordship gave judgment accordingly.