The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-14 00:00:00

was to execute them as they stood; and if this bill was itta•
counted toe an usnrious coi.sidersaion, it could not be made the
subject of an action by any of the parties who were privy to the
transaction. Tney wmild again have the opportunity of bearing ids ,
Loaned Fr;eusl ( dr. Brougham), and h reniai;ied to be sew wire.
tha he &mid bolster up this affair, anti make it appear any tiring
better than one of great suspicion and that was tonged thrtiegierat
with the grossest usury and fraud.
Mr. linoenwa sr said in reply, that lie by no means isteoded
object to any dung that had been said with respect to the charge of
usury. Bard as it might be, where a person had advanced bin that.
sand nottnits, that lie should' by the sets of others be prevented into
recovering it, yet the law was as it was, and they must state it as ft
was ; and he meant to show that by that law the plaintiff had so
unquestionable right to a verdict. The Jury must be satisfied that
there was luxury on the part of Mago himself, and not merely On
the part of Coate*, before any thing could affect the plaintiff ugh,
law now stood, supposing usury was proved to have entered !noway
p not the transaction Ma bill of caching° ; yet in the hands of at
holder for a valuable consideration, that bill was as good as fr vs
usury lied been committed, unless it should be shown that *a
holder previously knew there was such usury. The only evidence
of usury in this cats was that of Deltale, who stated that he wag
referred by Mago to Coates. There was not a tittle of evldowee
that any of the money paid by Delisle to Coates ever cense to
Mello's hands. Mago had positively sworn that he did not refer Do.
lisle to Coatis, and had never received a jarthingbeyond the legal die.
count. Was it not possible that Dellsle might be mistaken as to the
supposed reference to Coates ? Was it not more reasonable to behave
him to have forgotten the facts in that respect, than to slippage
Mr. 'dingo to have most wilfully and deliberately perjured hiroself
from the begming to the end ? If Mago were so guilty as it wee
pretended, why had he kept back the other WOOL bill, wllvkla
formed the eithject of the next action ? For if usury was attlldie4
to the bill tr.w before the Court. it equally attached to the other
bill, upon which dingo was himself suing the present defendant as
the acceptor. With regard to sonic of the bills paid by the plaits.
tiff to Mago not becoming due an soon as the 19111.11. bill, it siollt
be recollected that the defendant had written Mayo a letter; id
which lie gave him to understand that it was very probable Delieli .
would not he prepared to honour that bill when due; and thee, WWI
also reason in believe that the defendant would. not be able tel MRS
his own acceptance ; Mr. Mago therefore thought it better to bare
other bills, though of a longer date, to run, which he was certain
would be duly honoured, than to hold the hill of a shorter date
which there was every reason to believe would not be honoured.,
The Learned Counsel aguin impressed it on the Jury to reflect to
the very serious charge which their verdict would amount to a
against Msgo, should that verdict be adverse to the plaintire
claim.
The LORD CtftEr JUSTICE summed up the evidence, observing
that the two questions raised For the consideration of the Jury /Re
first. did Mago discount the bill at a legal discount, or not; and if
he did, did the plaintiff give him honestly and fairly a considers.
tion for it ? The proof of the consideration snood entirely on the
evidence of sLign ; butt if they brilered Debate, and thought that
M ago did receive, either by himself or through the intervention of
Coates, more than five per cent. discount, then it would be digital%
for them to believe the mount given by Maces, as to the trans.
action between hint and the plaintiff. Should they, however, be.
have Dclisle as to the usury, and Magn as to the consideration paid
to him by the plaintiff. then the plaintiff would be entitled to their
verdict; but if the impeachment of part of Manes evidence should
incline them to riiibelit.re the whole of it, then their verdict moat
be for the defendant.
The Jury, having consulted tr7gether a quarter of an bone, ift.
turned a verdict for the defendant.