The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-07-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, IJACOLR'/•IU,
MOSIDAY, JULY 16.
-.......
The LORD CHANCELLOR came into Court at
hall-past nine o'clock.

COLRBROOKR V. LEIGH.
The LORD CHANCRI,LOR—" I have again, Mr.
Hart. given my serious attention to this petition,
and I think I shall be able lo do something that
will be for the benefit of all concerned, and I will
communicate on coming into Court to-morrow
morning the decision I have come to. You may
be toured that I will not postpone my judgment
over the time I have mentioned to Mr. Croft Ow
Registrar.) Take a note of this, and let it stand
at the head of the paper for to-niurrow."
To-morrow will be the first seal after Term.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDHALL,
MONDAY, JULY 16.

---
Before the LOAD CHIEF JUSTICE and Common

Juries.

PARKER V. INGRAM.
This was on action oil a bill of exchange for 50/.
drawn by a per.on named Safford, on mid accepted
by Ingram, the Defendant, and endorsed over to the

The handwriting of the drawer and acceptor
wag proved.

The defence set up was usury. To prove his
case. Mr. PULLER called

Buford, the brother of the drawer. He
stated that he accompanied his brother to the Plain-
tiff's shop, a silversmith's, in the neighbourhood of
Oxford-road, where they saw the Plaintiff. Wit-
ness's brother told him that he wanted some articles
in his trade, and that he had a bill which he wished
him to take in payment, and give him the difference;
and he would leave the bill with him to make in-
quiry iespeciing it. This wee done, and they celled
a second time, when the Plaintiff said, he supposed
they would have no objection to buy goods
to the amount of twenty pounds. Witness's
brother objected to taking so much goody, and ulti-
mately selected a milk ewer, a marrow spoon, a
cheese knife, a butter knife, end some other trifling
articles, for which the Plaintiff asked ten guinea.,
but afterwards took ten pounds, and 6s. 9d. for
the discount, and gave a cheque on his banker for
391. 138.3 d. Witness immediately took the arti-
cles to Mr. Archbutt's, who keeps ■ pawnbroker's
and silversmith'. shop, in Wesiminoter-bridge-road,
fur the purpose of selling them, where they were
weighed, and found to be 13 oz. of silver, which
he sold to Mr. Arclibutt for 41. 10s.

Mr. GURNEY. to rebut this evidence, called the
Plaintiff's shopman, who stated that the goods
we►e sold at the fair price at which they would have
been sold to any other customer, and without any
view to the discount.

Mr. GURNEY in reply contended, that he had
made out • strong case for the I'l ' 'fl. If the
defence now set up were to pleb-ail, it would be im-
possible for any tradesman to sell goods and take a
bill of exchange in payment ; since all that would
be necessary to avoid it, would be to purchase
goods and immediately sell them at half-price. To
have made any thing like an answer to his case, he
contended the Defendant should, at all events,
hive called Archhutt to have stated that he gave
the full value for the goods.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE charged the Jury
that if they were of opinion that an extraordinary
profit had hero laid on the grinds in consideration of
discounting the bill, then they would find their
verdict fur the Defendant; but if they thought it
was a fair and bona fide transaction, then they would
find for the Plaintiff.

The JURY deliberated fair a quarter of an hour,
and then returned • verdict for the Defendant.

COLLINS C. COMBER.

Mr. MA RRY ATT stated the case to the Jury for
the Plaintiff. He said his client sought to recover
by this action the sum of 150/. which he had lent
to the Defendant. lie should call a witness who
would prove the Defendant's acknowledgment of
that sum, though lie refused to pay it, except the
witness would gi►e him a discharge also for 934
which was due from him to the Plaintiff, but which
he could not recover by law, at it was money won
at play.
A. Daly called and examined.—Witness knows
the Plaintiff; lie went by desire, in September
1820, to ask Mr. Comber for the money due to
Plaintiff, 150/. money lent, and 931. which had
been won at play. Mr. Comber acknowledged the
debt of 1501. and that the slips of paper, stating
a balance of 931. were all his figures.
Cross-examined by Mr. SCAR LETTo—The Plain-
tiff is a coal and corn-merchant, and lives in Dor-
set-place, Clapham-road ; witness was not present
when the 1501. was lent ; lie heard from the Plain-
tiff that the 93/. was won at hazard or backgam-
mon, at his (the Plaintiff'►) house, nobody be ing
present but the parties. The 150/. was lent the
next day, at the Bull, at Shooter's Ilill, where the
Plaintiff and Defendant had dined together.
Mr. SCA MATT opened this as a case of iniclannt-
ed profligacy on the part of the Plaintiff. The
case, he should prove, would 'thew that the sum
of 93/. Inst at gambling was an after thought of the
Plsiiitiff. This was the first time the Defendant
braid ail that demand. His client was a very young
man, only now 22 years of age, and was the sun of
a ►oust respectable merchant. lie fell in with Mr.
Collins at Brighton, who being well-dressed, form-
ed an acquaintance with him, and meeting him
afterwards in London, invited him (Defendant) home
to his house to dinner. The Defendant went and
drank very freely of wine, and at that time it was
that this gambling was said by the Plaintiff to have
taken place, and the amount which he then claim-
ed as won by him was 1304 but of which the De-
fendant had not the smallest knowledge or recol-
lection. That this was the sum the Plaintiff de-
manded, and not 931. as now stated, he should
prove out of the Plaintiff's own mouth, by the
evidence of a respectable tradesman into whose
shop the Defendant went to take refuge from the
abuse of the Plaintiff, who constantly raised a
mob about him when he met him in the ►treet.
J. Jokes, exairrined.—Knows the Defendant; he
was at has warehouse in August 1110. when the
Plaintiff came in he demanded 1501.; the Plaintiff
'hewed Defendant two slips of paper, ai:d asked

him if they were net his figures, and said thetas.
lance against him was 1601.
-- Evans examened• . Witness is a tobacco.
nist in Bishopagaie-strart ; the Defendant was at
his shop on the 'l7th November loot flit snuff; h.
returned again iu a minute or two and the Plotting
with him. The Defendant wished him to get on
oAcer, raying the Plaintiff had violently abused
him in the street. Plaintiff said, that he (De-
fendant) had- lost 1501. at hazard, and now re-
fused to pay him. Plaintiff said he would arrest
him for that sum, and would bring it into Court,
though he was aware it would cost him front 701.
to 801., and that hr should not recover ulti-
mately. His object was to tarnish the character
of the Defendant. He paid, 4' Your character to
you is dearer than 1501. and you had better pay me
that sum than be exposed in such • manner as rot
necessarily must be in a Court of Justice." He
added, that he would pay sit the reporters in Lon-
don to be at the trial.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jo NES —The snip of 931.
wa4 not mentionrd.

The LORD CHIEF JUITICR—" Well, Mr. Mar-
ryatt, if these witnesses are believed, you way as
well be called."

Mr. MARRTATT assented.
Plaintiff nomsrited.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Au 10.

MEDLEY •. SNITH.

Mr. Serjeant LAWES shewed cause against • rule
Nisi, obtained by Mr. Serjeant Prake on Tuesday
last, why the verdict should not be set aside and a
new trial granted. It appears that this cause was
tried at the Kingston Lent Assizes 1820, incident-
ally to try the right of property to a house at Upper
Kennington Green, worth 1,1001. seized by virtue
of a writ of extent at the suit of his Majesty, and
claimed to be purchased by the Plaintiff. who is a
clerk in the Accountas.Ve Office, in the Earn India
House, and was the tenant in possession at the same
lime for the sum of 401. only. At the said trial
• nominal verdict, under the direction of the
Judge, was found for the Plaintiff. subject to
the decision of this Court on a special case, to
be afterwards settled between the Counsel for the
parties, but they not being agreed thereon. the
above motion became necessary on the pa►t of the
Defendant. It should be remarked that the Plain.
tiff being unsuccessful in his opposition to the said
rule, their urged that the ipirne should only be made
absolute for a new trial at Lent Assizes 1822, but
the Court considering that the Defendant was
clear') entitled to a new trial at the approaching
Summer Assizes, mede..the tole absolute accord.
ingly.