The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1803-01-28 00:00:00

TAYLOR v. HARRIS.

. Mr. ERSKINE also moved for a new trial in this
cause. It was an action tried at Guildhall upon
Live promi.i.ory notes, amounting to several hunched
'winds ; the defence set up was that they were
tainted with usury ; the Plaintiff's Counsel, Mr.
CI Has, then proposed to go upon the count in the
Declaration, for goods sold and delivered, aad in
support of his right to do so, he had voted the
case of (;ray against Purse, from Blackstone's
Reports, by which it had been determined that if
a person took a usurious bill in payment of goods,
and that hill was not paid, he had a right to resort
to his action for the value of the goods; and it. had
been further determined, that if the usio icus bill
was afterwards given up fur another security, such
as a mortgage, still an action for the amount of the
goods, was not precluded. The law of this case
had been thought upon the trial to apply to the
present one, and a verdict had been given for the
Plaintiff. The present case however, differed ma-
terially from that in Blackstone's Reports. The
Defendant had purchased goods of the Plaintiff,
and paid him by several promissoi y notes ; they
were negotiated by the Plaintiff ; two of them were
duly taken up by the Defendant, who finding he
could not honor the rest without distressing himself,
proposed that the Plaintiff should call them in, and
draw fresh bills to their amount ; the Plaintiff re-
fused to afford bim this accommodation at the rate
of S per cent. therefore insisted on a premium on
the original amount of the goods. The notes in-
cluding this usurious premium were given, and they
were the same the action had been brought upon.
Had the action been for the notes originally given,
it would have been w'ith:n the case cited ; but it
was a distinct and independant loan unconnected
with the sale of the goods, and therefore the Plain-
tiff was not intitled to avail himself of the count
for goods sold and delivered
Lord ELL! N3O ROCall observed, that on this
statement it was ?ant reasonable the defendant should
have the benefit of a rev: trial.—Ruie ted.
The whole of the day was occupiecrta: motion
for trials, but the subjects of them, however in-
teresting to the parties, were of so flat and dull a
nature, that we fear we should exhaust our readers
patience by detailing them.

APProbation.• This: rule fdr a new trial wgs, there-
foot, =tune- .
• 9SLL 9. MOCO.
Mt. serisant &unsnap also mowed for a rule to
spew cause why a new trial should not be granted in
this cause. It nil an action brought by, the plaintiff
to recover the of a lottery ticket that his wife
had purchased, in partnership with the Defendant.
The ticket was bought with Mr. Hogg's money, by
Mrs. Gills the Jury, when they gave their terdict
for the Plaintiff, understood that the Defendant had
entered into an agreement to afford Mrs. Gill a
moiety of any prize that might come up—this was
not exactly true. He had, undoubtedly, promised her
a shire, but that promise could not sufficiently en-
title Mrs. Gill to a demand, and whatever might be
the intention of the Defendant on the first com-
mencement of the affair, the treatment he had ex-
perienced from the Plaintiff siace, he had determin-
ed him not to gi fe Mrs. Gill any of the prize in
question. An expression had been made use of by
the Plaintiff's servant, who said, that Mrs. Gill had
promised her a new gown, if the ticket came up a
prize, which promise was on condition that Mr.
Hogg should agree to it, and proved that the De-
fendant was alone the proprietor of the ticket.
Lord ALVANLY remarked, that the expression
made use of by the servant, was as Much in favour of
one party as of the other; he had formerly directed
the Jury to give their verdict according to the evi-
dence, and he was satisfied they had decided agree-
ably to law.—The Court refused the rule.