The Express.
London, England, 1853-02-04 00:00:00

N. 411.0 itlttiligence.

JUDICIAL commtrrF.E OF TILE PRIVY
COUNUIL—YrgrianAT.

Passmer —gut C., Pia J. [taxa', Mt Parsons.
TIM Jaws or TN. .U.2IIIIALTT 4.l lr. API> 61l LIMAILD NT.J..
POLLOCK •MD OTNINS V. BLit/STMT.—I:SC*IT.
.

JUDOMIXT.

The arpheats in this ease wee. roamed this morning.
Mr. B or and Mr Forsyth appeared for the appellants;
Mr. Temple and Mr. I:reenter represented the respondents.
This was an appeal from the judgment of the Court of
Ap
twils fur Lower Catiaia. Tim judgment now ap-
ed
against was deb.:red in an appeal to the
ourt of Appeal by the respondent spina a jade,-
mot obtained by the appellants in the Cruet of
Queer's Bench in Montreal. condemning the respondent
to psy a sum of 1,004., the amount of a promissory note
mad. by Edward Hackett, with interest. The original
judgment of the Court of Queen's Ibrieh was reversed by
Mho Court of Appeals, and it ie !wawa the last mentioned
jodgment of reversal that the present appeal was invituted.
The action was broagLt by time appellants 'gains' the re-
vondent as payee and endorser of the promissory note.
The graunds upon which the respondent resisted the de-
mand of the sops Caws were, that the &reenacts had the
note by • nosnecs title, and that the respondent was the
payee ea I euderser, and only as security, !which feet was
known to the appellants, and that the note had been paid
in the coarse of she at. slings between the appellants and
the firm of Hack, tt Anil C•rs, and that upon a statement of
see innt hetweeu Edosrd Harkett and Co. and the appel-
lasts a bahmee appeared in favour of the former. Thin
graunde of dinner were disclosed in a number of
pleas filed by the repo,. .. tat. The first of these
plea rots forth that Edward Ilackettjand William Dickin-
son carried on trade at 31ontreal, as forwarders, under the
firm of Edward Haekett aid Cu ; that Juhn Pollock,
Arthur Peilock, Allan Gilmour, and Allen Gilmour, the
youneer, the appellants, carried on trade with William
Ritchie and Co., at Montreal, as general merchants. The
last mentioned liras was dissolved from that time forward ;
until the time of !lie tiling of the plea the appellants car-
ried on trade a' newsreel under the firm of Gilmour and
Co. ; that the said Edward Hackett and Co. and the said
Viibiaut Ritchie and Cu. entered into an arrangement by
which it was mere. d that Riled' anal Co. were to advance
money and weals to !ticket' and Co , and that in consi-
deration of the ideal ere made to them were to forward
produce, A.:. for Ritchie and Co. at rates 25 percent.
below the current rates ; that by the consent of all parties,
Gilmour and Co. took the place of William Ritchie and Co.
Oa toe dinolution of the latter firm with re-
spect to all tho dealings and agreements be-
tween the said William Ritchie and Co., of which firm the
said Gilmour and Co. were the successors, and the
and Edward Hackett and Co., that the paid William
Ritchie and Co., agreed to make en additional advance to
Edward Hackett and Co., by discounting their paper to the
amount of 2,6001. currency if indorsed to the satisfaction of
William Ritchie Anil Co. ; that Edward Hackett and Co.
thereupon imam ed the respondent to indorse a bolo for
1,0001, that la,li g to • notwanwhich this action was brought,
and one Adam a erne, carrying on trade there under the
game of Adam F. rrie and Co., to indorse • note for 1,6001.,
B -edbury and Ferrie beingmerely accommodation endorsers;
that the reupon William Ritchie and Co. obtained the two
notes from Hackett and Co., and that it was corruptly
and against the law, agreed between Hackett and Co., and
Ritchie and Co., that Ritchie and Co. should lend to
Hackett and Co., 2,3751.. and that Ritchie and Co., should
forbear, ani give day of payment thereof to Hackett and
Co., until the two promissory notes should reach
maturity, and that Hackett and Co. for the lean of the said
2,3751. currency, and for giving day of payment thereof for
the time aforesaid should give and pay to Ritchie and Co.,
when the two notes should reach maturity, the sum of 1251.
currency, which Ritchie and Co. styled their commission,
but which was in truth so much usurious interest on the
said sum to be advanced. And also that the said firm of
Edward Hackett and Co. should pay interest on the sum of
2,3751. from the time it should be required, and be so lent
and advanced until the time of payment of the said 2,3751.,
with interest as aforesaid, to Ritchie and Co. And that for
securing the payment of the said 2,3751., with interest as
aforesaid, to Ritchie and Co., Hackett and Co. should de-
liver to Ritchie and Cu. the said two promissory notes.
The usury complained of by the respondent was
varied in statement in the neat five folio', but
was substantially what was set forth in the first plea.
to the defence of usury the appellants filed general
. an-
swers, and to the pleas alleging that the promissory note
was discharged, they answered speciall, averring that in-
depently of the two notes there was a large balance due to
them by E. Hackett arid Co.; with this answer the :appel-
lants filed • general account of the dealings between them
and Hackett ~red Co. The respondent, in reply to the spe-
cial answer of the appellants, contended that a number of
large sums of money, for whirl, the appellants had taken
credit in the account filed by them should be struck from
the account, ow the ground that those sums had been ad-
vanced under usurious iqreements, and in consideration
of an usurious allowance of 5 per cent over and
above legal interest, and the respondent further al-
leged, that if these sums were so struck oat, there would
be • balance in favour of Hackett and Co. At the hearing
it was contended that the account furnished by the appel-
lants did, upon the face of it, make out the usury alleged,
as they have in that account credited Hackett and Co. with
the two promissory notes, and have debited Hackett and
Co. with various advances at different periods, some in cash
and some is bills, on their own promissory notes, and have also
debited Hackett and Co. with what they call • commission
on those advances, amounting to 6 per cent. over and above
the legal interest of 6 per cent.
It was contended on the part of the appellant, that the
% special pleas were CI bad in •t of law. The plan of
compensation failed from not sappletad by the evi-
dence, and the pleas of usury she ' because they also
were not supported by the evidemse ; soseadly, laseanew
what the svideuce did prove wus,dra duo was no wwristes
contrast at all, the mualesiew being a bees Ye legal OM-
saledea, sail set whey.
It was eseleaded ea basil of the seepsedest that the dis-
count fasuri • part of a current mossert between the sp-
ans,
to awl Hackett anal Co., as hewarders for the appal-
and Mutates of money amt pods made_ by the
were made on the =pall sewillits that the
beam du. by Hackett awl Ca. should be Ism at
sham he. 10 to 20 par mt below the seenbilebed
*area 4 ths trade, id that s sea of 6 per end., under
Ile ems di sleek of *maiden, was chervil ups er
deleseed he. the SWUM of the immaksory as* OW Sad
AIM the Ned Mena ofd par am, Minh dime es de-
demase e(4 per Newt woo set seppead by the eneepe of
*de be elaM trameelins i eadreme it en* amp or
dednellen bad, la feet, ban amok me* drip wee nee war
-
Osby law. • lamp parties elamen imp which
pastas lad Mee meld bad boa mile by them
mkt modem essaineat end debt * he elm* km the
spoilt of the cdt.eate ft the used* bedew Om and
Hackett ed ad able amid came a beide in tamer
of Hackettlnd sash *as Misled le eniamidt the
debt seesht te be sesewited. de the mellows gave credit
be Redid Id Ce. be saws le &MIL lb. Bd.
tam tbe Me beam de% *et sea to base We sp-
ON is diedrizasal thea=e=
Ilk Jams j and said that the
aistsdel peedss te be eataitlered la Ibis am was whether,
M. cireashsismes, this a allym
Mart win meansenb of east
dist vu
glees were bad bat elk OW the amaipmeas we. set Si
desk for wary. The judgment of the Nest beim met
filmier, be reversed. _

COURT OF COMMON PLRAB.—YzerrEaDAT.
ammo AT Not NITS n. WITUIASILI.—BILFOIII Cato Aims
I)\TU AIM ♦ sPICIAL 11711 T.
Baowx v. Satre.-sLAwnsz.

The plaintiff in this cue is • coach builder at lialuwertb,
In Suffolk, and the defendant is • solicitor in Southampton
huddler. The action was brought to recover dummies for
certain slanderous words spoken of the plaintiff by the de-
hudeat, who pleaded that be was not /why.
Mr. Montague Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Lush appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeut Wilkins, Mr. Bramwell,
Q.C., sad Mr. Willes, for Use defendant.
The plaintire case wee, that in the year 1850 be wee in
the employ of Mears. Pritchard, who were coachmakers,
at the west end of the townjand about that time this firm
was in want of name money. The plaintiff wee acquainted
with the defendant, who was in the habit of discounting
bills and advancing money, and applied to him for the ad-
vance to Messrs. Pritchard of 1,0001., upon the se-
curity of two life policies. The defendant said he
woe short of money at the time, but he imputed soon
to receive 7,0001. As, however, Messrs. Pritchard were in
want of money immediately, the defendant au that
they should accept a bill for 2001., and he would get it dis-
counted at his bankers. He said it would appear &usage to
his bankers if he drew the bill himself, end he suggested
that the plaintiff should draw it; and at the same time
stated that the plaintiff should incur no liability apes it.
The plaintiff, upon this understanding, drew the bill, and
he afterwards drew two others, for 3001. and 6001. respec-
tively, upon the same understanding that be was not to be
liable. The plaintiff a aboard anything more of the
bills, and never received notice that they had been dis-
honoured, and he stated that he supposed that they had
been paid. In January, 1852, en incident occurred, which,
according to the statement of the plaintiff's anasel, was
the foundation of the defendant's ill will Wade the
plaintiff. The defendant had bad some dealle. with an
sale-tree shaker, named Grace, tad was .1111b1MIS of
making_ sena arrangements abut • debt, bat the
plaintiff bought Groat stock and good-will he
1 eel Ova prenatal the Admires bin set.
pied 171.,., the emegesent whisk he *abed. Ihselly
after the dada l ullarod timecards ass ware the
Seas las hands& Its. lisfsats _mooch painter,de in Met-
aled at the fendant's
Writ relleffyiVtalt% as dellathat told lin that
the plaintiff hod wawa Orem% Wieser asil dist if
the plaintiff iW net aim Is Yu end mho NA hem as
should be iatiafseteey le midi age lila a Imaiiimpte_ sad
would min him. The dellindonl visaedto sun DM of
Pritchard's, upon whisk the pieletiff wa limbic, bet did
not distinctly describe the mar Land Issmssisil Mr.
Stringer, as a friend of the plahaff to go advise him
to make terms. Mr. Straw did go to the plaintiff, who
said he owed the defendant naltieg. Mr. Striager, how_
ever, made inquiries, and assertalned that Pritchard's bills,
with the plaintiffs eats spat them, were in adeleas.
Mr. Stringer was a ereiber of the *lndira at ibb time fir
1001., money bat, auf he et ease Nos le pew ler
mat el this ors. sol go destined to ammo a
ease which he la Ibis ea his highs for the paintiA
a a wise Ns. Wow said, Mr. 'flambee, the
a enamor to the ailimant, eidegailist debt
wen IMS tho sad bead nabs he as implies-
Ula.ll ilia las Sollb Wanasseseme sw