The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-11-29 00:00:00

*flit for the Defendant's notes, ha 'legal rig it
so do so--aud the attorney in the cause having
evrect in pursuance of his instructions, could not,
ws.tt:out great hardship, be called on to pay the
atosts of this action.
"Jr. Serjeant Humt.ocu, in support of the role,
red, that it appeared by the affidavits that Mr.
Hopkinson, the Plaintiff's attorney in tie rose, had
gone on several different occasions to the banking•
imase of the Defendant with notes of the Bank to
*itlollll amounts; demanding cash, and refusiug to
tate Bank of England notes and silver for the same.
Is was further stated in the affidavits, that Mr. Hop.
kip :on hail applied to several persons in Dewsbury
fair cotes of the Defendant's hank, for which he
:eve Bank of England notes in exchange, and on
occasion having been offered by ruse of those
o•rzans some notes of another Bank in the same
he had said, " No, he did tint wrist them.
'o:“.llagitt's notes were what he. wanted " Anil
a:oao every refusal at the Detimilint's house to give
hon cash for the notes, he had threatened to bring
...parole *limns by way of increasing the incouve-
usasce goal expense to the Defendant. In the sib.
isev't of Mr. Hopkinson in reply, it was only stated
vie tireit tour of his making the application to the
Defetidant that he had acted in consequence of the
instrisoions front the Plaintiff; and no denial was
Keen to the statement of his having purchased the
Idefendaut's notes front the persons named in the
arfidavits on the other side.
Chief Justice DALLA4 said, that this rule was
wholly unconnected with the question of the Plain-
tiff's right to refute a tender of Bank of England
nines, upon which no doubt could exit, the case
hawing been already most clearly derided. But
We question here was whether the denusiol had
been. fairly raised on the port of the Plaintiff, to
try the. question of right, or whether it had cox
teen•vetatiously gotten up and proceeded in by
Mr. Mopkinson, the attorney. The latter was the
elear impression upon his mitts'. from the state-
'n-tits in the affidavits on both sides. It was nut
• ':tt le singular, io any other view of the case, that
iveitist tins rule no affidavit had been filed on the
part of the Plaintiff; mid it was equally remark.
able, that Mr. Hopkinson, est his affidavits, had
oot ventured to state that the original ides of mak-
iog the demand originated with the Plaintiff, aed
was not of his own sup :ration. Under all the cir-
tt ttt sauces of this case, lie was of opinion that
this rule should be made absolute.
Mr. Justice PAUL coincided in opinion with his
Leameti Brother the Chief Justict, and further
characterised the conduct of the attorney as more
ked and oppressive in its nature than soy thing
be had witnessed during tine course of a very
tune experience in Courts ofJustice.
Mr. Justice BVIIRPUGIN coincided in the deci-
sion ad his Leartied Brothers, tool added, that if
ti e application had gone further, to the length of
hiving Mr. Hopkinson struck off the rolls of the
knurl. his only objection would have been that he
thought the case a very fit subject of an indictment
for conspiracy. For although any individual might
Jive au undoubted right to insist upon payment cf
t",e totes of oily bank in specie, yet nc person had a
ri,;io to combine in this mangier to make a vexa-
tions and oppressive demand of such a peyitiesit for
tie purpose of cooling serious inconvenieuce, per-
ruin, to the business of the bank.