The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-01-12 00:00:00

•

did biPdefondt, I would havelhoriPh as sure as you had been a
men." This lltde antidote Showed the disposition of the defend.
ant, and in some measure exulairted the vexatious conduct he bad
pursued towards the•tilsintflT thinnest! the whole affair. He
should now call witnesses to prove the cue as stated, and he should
then expect at the hands of else Jury such damages as would
0 4 com-
pensattedur ' Was injury lie had suffered.
adir
Ns. Liaserm, attorney in the cans, was called to prove
OW the midis was given of the plaintiff's intention to
presitutii '... •• 3`. ' . •
The nodes was road, when it appeared to be addressed to the
.
lifiat
AIMS ali Lipeltanab, wise was not joined in the present
Ilkeift;ae'r'Stir oelliet;ll9l99, that as the notice was of an action to
beMirajjt sjellat firm and the declaration being only against
AORK4KVISW Alla "'' • '
111 Awbtaietme mid Its had been engaged in a case where a
sisellawslesediwwas alms, and it was ruled by the Court to be of
luttli
ladlUit Cla re J'utrtek took a invent the objection.
IPS. Sega wee eparnined by kir. Ptarr.—His evidence
was% walesedretisce deo facts, as stated by the Learned Counsel in
his elielideg addrate.' •
Ilikcettetwww. it eimaantemlntrig this witness. endeavoured to
Aids bass him jiiitautatanees to show that the fishing smack, the
Viebami, was is iset alanuggling Teasel, but the witness, although
heads*** than were such fish as tabs in his part of the country,
• and titer tit WWI very well what blackede men wete, and that
•: delinilletrws• la Gob fee tube, yet he positively denied that any
spiels Mae en beard the smack at the time it was boarded by the
mimics Metter.
Mi. OcrititY then addressed the Jury on behalf of the defen-
dant:nib did not mean to contend that the plaintiff was not in
'this elleltaeatidata to their verdict ; but the question was, what da.
inuttflakailte sustained. It was clear from the evidence that there
was tiodojory done to the plaintiff—no ill-usage towards him—but,
:Iklr4efteary, every consideration had been paid to his feelings
with that line of conduct which the defendant considered
Athlete*, ea it happened, in this instance. erroneously considered) to
' betbisiitey. The circumstances in which the smack had been
hest were certainly very suspicious. Here was a small fishing_
meek, which required only a crew of about three men to do all the
necessary duty for which she was intended, found by a revenue
Meer at sea, with eight men on board—her net, after being out
three days, not only dry, but, to all appearance, never haying been
used, and with not a single fish on board. Now these facts were suf-
ficient to excite a:very strong suspicion, and it seemed that this suspi-
cion had been entertained of her by the officer of the revenue at Rye,
thrit cop tender his authority that the defendant had acted. Well,
the. delkndant, in purtuaree of that authority, goes on board of her,
and .etches her, but instead of letting her go petition' so soon as
he :Swig to have done, he detains her and her crew from seven
o'clock In the morning of the 29th to nine the next morning. This
certainly waa no long time to be detained under Stith circumstances,
and could not call for heavy damages, especially when it was
recollected that no less than eight different actions had been brought
aggsin this defendant for the same offence; for it seemed that
Me. Langham was the Attorney-General round that part of the
cost, and the ex-officio protector of all fishing smacks against the
assaults of revenue cutters. No sooner, therefore, had this said
smack', the Diamond, escaped from the short durance in which she
had been held, than away went every one of her much-injured crew
to this Mr. Attorney-General, and out flew eight writs all at once
upon the back of his poor client. The Jury would remember that
theeosts of all these actions must fall on the defendant: they would
therefore, in awarding the damages, take this very material fact into
their consideration, and he was sure, under all the -circumstances,
nominal damages would fully meet the Justice of the case.
La bdupserr. in anointing up. said, that it had been admit-
ted that the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict. and the only quest.
tion was. what was the amount of the damages they ought to give.
It most not be forgotten, that no less than nine actions had been
brought for this one case. It was but fair that those who had so
Uiticult a dose to perform as the persons appointed to carry the Re.
venue Laws into effect, should have everg,hberal construction
afforded to their conduct, but still this was not in screen them from
thoconeeenences of a clear breach of the law. They would consider
their verdict, and give such temperate damages as would meet the
...tiatice of the case.
The Jury commlted together about fire minutes, and found a
verdict for the plaintiff.—Damages 51.—Costs 40s.
WILLIAMS v. RCIWL AND.
This was an action, grounded on the Statute of Ann, to recover
certain penalties incurred by the defendant, for a corrupt contract
mat by him in transacting a loan with one Mr. Coates, by which
he received usurious interest on the sum of 9001.
Mr. COMMON SERGEANT, Mr. Poctock, and Mr. HOLT,
were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sc./inter v for the defendant.
Mr. COMMON Snitor ans. lusted the ease to the Jury. This
was an action brought on a very salutary Statute, passed in the
reign of Queen Ann, which imposes a penalty on those who extort
from needy men a greater rate of interest on any money they might
heed lent them than 5 per cent. t and if he was instructed tightly,
ono case could more strongly call for the application of this law
than the one he was about to state to them. Mr. Coates was a
mercer and draper living in St. Martin's-lane, Westminster ; the
defendant was a tailor, and a monied man, as the circumstances he
wan shoat to mention would show, and he lived in street,
near the Haymarket. In the month of January, 1821, Mr. Comes
was involved, and was obliged to borrow money. He accordingly
applied to the defendant, who he thought WAS then his friend, to
lend him 1,0001. This be promised to do upon being secured. Sir.
Coates had another friend, a Mr. Savage, whom he got to Araw on
him two bills, one payable the 29th April, for 5001. and the other
payable on the 29th July, for another 500 L These bills having
been accepted by Mr. Coates, he took them to Mr. Rowland's, the
defendant, who said that as they were for such ion' dates, be in. wit
have 21 per cent. more than the usual interest. ^This was agreed
to. and in a day or two after, being the 25th January, Mr. Castes
called again on the defer.dant for the cash, but instead of receiving
the amount previously agreed upon, the defendant now said he
would only give him 5001. Mr. Coates being in urgent eircum-
ate-Rees, took a check for this sum. On the 29th April the first
bill became due, and was paid ; on the 29th July the second bill
bed.ame due, but was not paid. The defendant soon after appliad
to Mr.-Coates for the money, when it not being convenient for him
to raise it, it was arranged that the defendant should take another
bill to be drawn by Mr. Savage on a Mr. Burns. of Aruntiel.
street, Bryanatonessquare, for 3561. 55., to be payable on the 31st
October.'lB2l, and the remainder should be paid in cash. Ac-
cnedingly, Mr. Savage gave his check for 1431. 15a., and drew a
bill on Burns for 3.561. 55., which redeemed the second bill for
5001.,end included the interest thereon from the 29th Jan. to the 31st
Oct On the 31st Oct. this bill was duly paidd, and then it was that
the .offence charged against the defendant was completed. He
shbuld call witnesses to establish these facts, without entering into
sot comments on the nature of the offence, that having been so
clearly defined, and the punishment for it fully provided by the
Statute he had already mentioned.
Wm. Coates examined by Mr. PoLLoex—He had known the
defendant many years, and had had several transactions in business
with him. Applied to him in January, 1821, to discount him two
bills; the hills were to be drawn afterwards. Witness told him be
coidd get the hills drawn by a gentleman in the city, and defendant
sell that he should have no objection to discount them on certain
conditions ; the conditions were not at that time mentioned. In
consequence of this, witness procured two hills to be drawn upon
himself, by his friend Mr. Savage. He took the bills to the de-
fendant, who, on observing their dates, said, be must have some-
thing morethan the usual interest--. 24 percent. more. Witness did
not give him the bills then, but took them to hint on the 25th, when
defendant gave him ( witness) a check for 9001.; but a third person
being present, nothing besides passed bet seen him and the de-
:ell:lent cot that occasion. The check was cashed on the same day ;
he did not remember thr date of the check, but he received it on
the 256 of January: it was drawn on Messrs. Hopkinson, bankers,
Ragent-street. Wtnsaa frequently asked defendant for more money
tor the bills, but he never received any more ; defendant always
sating that he had already given too much. The first bill was
ram the day it became due—the second was not; he PAW the
defsplant, and told him he could not pay it, who said lie must have
the moneir on the Sd August. Witness made an arrangement with
the defendant to take another bill, to be drawn by Savage on Bums,
foe 3151 sa. payable 31st Oct. 1821, and the remainder in cash.
T11141:111 was sent to defendant with a check for the balance. The
chatle was drawn on Ransom and Co. bankers, Pall-mall. The
till w'. payable at Peter, Pole, and Co.'s, bankers, Barthelo-
mCs.lane.
The Loan Curer JUSTICE observed, that the last payment
writ in Middlesex. and supposing that had not been pant how ,
would it have appeared that any usurious interest had been taken by
the-defendant ?
Mt. POLLOCK said, that the second bill having been paid and
satisfied, partly by a bill to be paid in future, and by a check pre-
sently, the contract which was necessary to constitute the offence
WeLorm plcte.
Me LOnnante replied, that Ni that Mr. Pollock most put his
stlatitient. that if any part of the 5001. had been paid, the offence
wee committed ; but the question was, did the payment in part
forth a part of the usurious payment, or only a part of the principal
ttek22
Mt: SaARLITT contended that the whole sum, principal and
itterest, must be paid before the action could be brought for usury.
ilia,Losinsute--80 I think for there is the tempos penitentice 4
andunlifill his been paid, the defendant may see his error, and
correCt i
The Cosestow SERGEANT argued, that if any part of the
money:7_lj* paid in London, it would be sufficient to give a
London Jill jurisdiction over the ease. .
liir.' Eibp9 Levi' repeated his observation, and said that two,
thfriftwire necessary to forma case of usury—the corrupt contract,
azette usurious taking of the money ; and as it had been decided
that, the paypent of the principal debt did not form any part of the
ca.* so here, inasmuch as the whole debt had not been paid in
Lawton, that part of it which had been so paid might be considered
as pmerf the principal, .and therefore not sufficient to constitute a
grdtsbd of action before i London Jury.
Lou bait r r said, he would not insist on the objection, tope-
d Ty&
is he had interpceed,and not Mr. Welt, but the defendant
An•
fi base to move for a nonauit upon the point.
Xt. Scall.S.VrT then proceeded to crosa.examine the witness.
Witneas slid not employ the attorney to bring this action, nor was
ha awve-that Mr. frlaig, another attorney, had been applied to.
n s did;tort apply to Mr. Mayhew, of Chancery-lane, to bring this
aceies• Witness had arranged, but not compounded with Ins cre-
diting C he-was to pay them abs. in the pound, and interest; and
had pidel .11,0001. out of 15.0401., the amount of his debts. Wit.
namhad never told any of hitereditors that
thusult of this action
would enable him "'make better terms with Had had very
long accounts with the defendant before this action was brought.
At bed never said he would do for Mr. Rowlands by bringing this

'Hien ; had never advanced Ilaig any money to commence it for
him.
[Here a letter, purporting to be written by witness to Mr. Haig,
indosing copies of his accounts with defendant, was handed to hint.
He admitted the letter to be in his hand-writing, but denied any
knowledge of the accounts.]
Have you never said it was Mr. Rowlands' interest to settle with
you, as you could make this usury or not as you thought fit ?
Never.
Did you never say it was in your power to put the 9901. to an
account current, or to make a separate transaction of is as you
thought proper ?—Never.
Witness knows Mr. Morose Nl'ood Rowlands, the defendant's
nephew.
Did you never Pay that this action and the one brought by Haig
were brought to make the defendant settle accounts with you ?
Witness hesitated. The question was repeated.
Witness-1 may have said it was to force him to settle the ac-
counts.
%rime's had shown the accounts to Williams, the present plain-
tiff, who said, " Isbell serve him out for this, for what be intended
to do for me ?"
Did you never say to Thomas W. Rowlands, upon his putting
a question to you on the subject—" Nonsense ; if they put me in
the witness box, I can make it appear what I like" ?—No, Sir.
1 will ask you again, said Mr. Scarlett, and the question was
repeated, but the witness gave no answer.
Did you never say to the same person, that you had been to
several sutting lawyers to de his uncle up ?—Certainly not.
Did you not tell him that you knew your trustees were afraid of
him, and that they had asked you to employ Mr. Hodson, who was
a clever cutting fellow ?—Never.
Did you never say to him, if Rowland behaved handsome, I will
do the same to him, for I can make it usury or not, as I please ?
Certainly not.
Did you never point out to Mr. T. W. Rowland, Mr. Hodson,
the attorney, on your own premises, and say to him, the' is the
tickler ?—I never did.
The cross-examination of this witness was continued in this man-
ner for some time longer, when 3lr. SCABLETT interrogated him
on certain accounts that had been passed between him and the
defendant, upon which the witness in some instances equivocated,
and in others seemed much at a loss to answer. He admitted that
he altered the date of a bill of exchange from the 25th to the 26th,
but denied that he altered the check of defendant for the 9001. from
the 26th to the 24th. lie also admitted that he snatched away an
account from Mr. T. W. Rowland which he had delivered to him,
and had kept possession of it ever since.
Mr. Savage was examined, whose testimony went only to the
facts spoken to in the former part of Coates's evidence.
Mr. ScaatErr then addressed the Jury for the defendant. Be
was prevented by the personal inconvenience he should sustain in
raising his voice to the extent the case deserved. The Jury would
be greatly surprised when he stated to them, that he had, in
Coates's own handwriting, calculations of 5 per cent. on the 9001. in
question ; that he had documents to show that Mr. Rowland, the '
defendant, was not able to pay more than the 000/. at the time
Coates applied to him for the money ; tbat he had accounts in his
isesseuion made out between the plaintiff and the defendant,
where the 900!. was admitted as an item of the account, and one
for 1.0001.
The Loan CHIET Jt'STlCE—Would it not be better to show
the documents to the Learned Gentlemen on the other side?
Mr. ScAa LETT handed them to 11r. Common Sergeant, but they
were not deemed satisfactory.
The Loan CHIEF JUIITICI—The. difficulty In this case is,
that the witness has proved a corrupt contract for 71i per cent., and
then a payment of WO/. on 1,0001., which is not at the rate of
per cent., but considerably more.
Mr. Common. SERGEANT, after consulting with his junior
Counsel, admitted that he felt the difficulty, and that die plaintiff
was put outolCourt, and must be nonsuited.
The plaintiff was accordingly noosuited.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, JAN. 11.

THE XING v. WINSLOW, GENT.
The defendant, an attorney, was charged with conspiring with
another attorney, named Ilallyday, to defraud Meier& Kent and
Avory, jewellers in Bond-street, of property to the amount of 2811.
The case was partly gone into on Monday, and was resumed yes-
terday.
The Jury mimed a verdict of Guilty; and
The Cilia aDIAN sentenced the prisoner to six months imprison-
ment in .Newgate.

SURREY GENERAL. QUARTER SESSIONS.
Yesterday, at half•past twelve o'clock, the Magistrates, preceded
by the Chairman, Mr. Seriven, took their seats on the Bench.
The attendance was very numerous : amongst the Magistrates
we noticed the High Sheriff, Sir T. Turton, Mr. Holnte Sumner,
Mr. Pares, Mr. Brlsene, Mr. Moberly, &c.
The usual routine business having been gone through, and the
proclamation against vice and immorality being read,
The Cum n MAN proceeded to charge the Grand Jnry, and con.
gratulated them on the state of the calendar, which was as light as
could b- expected. If any case of difficulty should occur to them,
he would give them his best assistance, although he regretted ho
could not do so with as great a measure of ability as his able pre.
decessor. However, the Jury had often discharged a duty like that
they were now called upon to perform, and he hoped they would
condone to discharge it with credit to themselves and benefit to
their country.
A resolution was agreed to, having for its object the better im.
provement of the roads generally in the county of Surrey., and
to amend the instructions given on this subject to the different
High Constables. A Committee was appointed to carry this Into
effect.