The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1807-12-22 00:00:00

6601. brought by Messrs. Young the elder and
younger, indorsees thereof, against Thomas Wright,
the drawer.
The Plaintiff proved all that was necessaisy, the
acceptance and several indorsements, and Shewtd
that no value had been passed hetween the drawer
and acceptor, and that a formal notice w4s dis-
pensed with, so as render the drawer chargeable.
The defence set up was, that this bill had been
originally drawn for an usurious consideration,
which, according to law, would render the bill pf
no avail, into whose hands sorter it might fall. In
support of this allegation, the only witness called
was a Jew, of greet notoriety in Courts of .justice,
Mr. John King, the money-lender. His credit was
impeached upon this ground, that at a period of
about is 'wars agn, he was accustomed to swear as
believer in the Gospels only ; while, upan ibis OSCA•
SIMI. he swore is a person believing in the Pentateuch.
iSif • King, at this time, said, that he h.d fortnerly
done wrong-, but that he bad now correacd his pr.ic-
sire. 'l'be substance of his evidence was relative to an
alleged agreement be: ween him, Thomas Wright,
read a Mr. Reeves. as to modes of raisiag money,
sv..4:h he did not deny to be usurious. He stated,
that he had been often applied to by the'llefendant
t 2 discount bills for him at various rates of interest.
and to the amoent of upards of twenty thousand
pounds, which he sometimes effelted at five per
cent, at the Bank, and when he failed there he pro-
cured money elsewhere, and charged his castomer
at the rate ot ten per cent. for three months. which
was equivalent to a nstrious interest of 40 per
cent. per annum. Upon all occasiOns, however, he
charged an average interest of 10 per cent. for the
time the bills had to run.

It was alleged, by the AVIIIRtf LY•G , who
was very stria in his cross-exAnnnAtion of this wit
nest, with a view to the discrediting his testimony.
that the whole was a concerted phis to defeat the
just claim of the indorsee. who had given a valuable
consideration for the bill in question ; by alleging
that there was usury in the transaftion, which
would render it, according to law, of no avail.
Lord ELLIMBOIWVOII, in addressing the Jury,.
descanted at considerable length upon the testimony
of Mr. ILing, and made several apposite observa-
tions upon the, nature of an oath, and the great
necessity there was that it should be atrial,' ob-
served, in point of form, according to the particu-
lar religion of witnesses giving their testimony in
Courts of Justice. In the present instance, it would
be trifling with jostice, it the witness, who had
been called by the Defendant, did not believe this.
seas an °Wigan:ay sanaion which was to give (fleet
to his rsttniony ; for if a person did not believe
in a state of future rewards and punishments, '
his credit must be impeached. and his testimony
have no effea at all.—This case entirely depended
therefore upon the degree of credit they attached
tithe testimony of Mr. King. It they believed bias
upon the oath he had taken. their verdia must,
be the necessity of law, be given in favour of t:!of
Defendant ; but it they did not believe the story lie
bad told upon oath, they must find o.:e for the
rlaintiff.
The Jury, evidently not crediting the testimony
of Mr. King, accordingly found a verdia for the
PlAinuff of 4631. with costs ; and in soothe r salon
upon a bill ander similar circumstances. they fourld
a similar verdiet.
"itCOMMCIN PLEAS—Gnu L , Dee. at.