The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-17 00:00:00

INJUNCTION.-BURKE V. ROSS AND OTHERS.

Mr. SKIRROW applied for a special injunction to restrain
the defendants from transferring 1,6001. and a fraction
stock standing in their names, and also for the purpose of
preventing the Bank of England in joining in that transfer.
The application was made under the following circum-
stances : The testator, a gentleman of the name of Chancey,
who died in December last at an advanced age, some-
time previous to his death was totally unfit to trans-
act business in consequence of his habits of intetn-
perance and frequent aberrations of mind. In one of his
forgetful moments he executed an assignment of the stock
in qUestion to a lady of the name of Ross, with whom he
had long cohabited. The stock in question was shortly
afterwards transferred to the defendants, as trustees for
Mrs. Ross. The plaintiff, who married one of the daugh-
ters of Mr. Chancey, upon ascertaining the circumstance
of the transfer of the stock to trustees, spoke to Mr.
Chancey upon the subject, who expressed himself entirely
ignorant of what he had done. The whole of the above
circumstances were supported by the affidavits of Mr.
Burke, and other persons of the highest respectability.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR considered there was asuffi-
cient prima facie case, and granted the injunction.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
THE USURY LAWS.-PERRY V. FITZGERALD.

This was an action brought to recover of the defendant
certain penalties, which he had made himself liable to un-
der the Statute of Queen Anne, by taking unlawful inte-
rest in the discount of some bills of exchange.
The ATTORNEY-GENEKAL appeared for the plaintiff,
and, after stating the circumstances under which the pre-
sent action was brought, called
Perry, who deposed that he applied to the de-
fendant to discount a bill of exchange for 641. 75., which
he agreed to do, and gave witness 591. 175., deducting
41. 10s. as discount. On another occasion Mr. Fitzgerald
discounted two bills for witness, accepted for the sum of
1031. 75., when he deducted as discount 5/. 75., and
banded to witness 981. The bills were all paid.
On cross-examination it appeared that the witness was
brother of the plaintiff, had been a bankrupt, and al►o
taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act.

This was the only evidence adduced on behalf of the
plaintiff.
Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury for the defendant.
He said they could not enter into a discussion of the good
or had effects of the Usury Laws. The statute was in
existence, and the Court was bound to administer it.
But he did hope that they would never give a verdict
against his client on the evidence of one solitary witness,
and that witness too a person which he (Mr. Gurney)
should prove was not to be" believed upon his oath. A
more vindictive and revengerul action was never brought
into a Court of Justice. The witness had existed on the
very means that Mr. Fitzgerald afforded him in discount-
ing his accommodation paper, and now turned round and
tried to recover three times the amount of that accommo-
dation. He could not bring the action himself, he there-
fore got his brother, and who was also his journeyman, to
become plaintiff, and no doubt if they succeeded the spoil
would be divided between them.
The Learned Counsel then called several witnesses, who
swore that they would not believe Perry upon his oath.
On their cross-examination, however, it appeared the
principal reason they had for not believing him was, that
he had failed in keeping his promises in money matters.
The ATTORNIV-GENERAL, in his reply, said if such a
fact was a sufficient reason for not believing, a man's oath,
it would render nine-tenths of the country unworthy of
belief.

Lord TENTERMLN summed up. His Lordship told the
Jury the whole case rested upon the credit they gave to
the witness Perry; if they believed him, the defendant
had clearly taken an illegal discount. He bad discounted
three bills at short dates, amounting to 1671. 145., for
which he charged 91. 17s. He had therefore, under the
Statute, made himself liable to three times the amount of
the bills, minus the discount, which sum, amounting to
473/. I Is., the plaintiff would be entitled to recover, if,
as he before said, they could credit the evidence of Perry.
The Jury consulted for a short time, and then returned
a verdict for the plaintiff for 473/. I Is.
Another action was then called on, the same plaintiff
against the father of the defendant iM the last cause, and
brought under the nine circumstances. A verdict for the
plaintiff for 1141. 15s. was taken by consent.

ASSAULT--CALLIEORNE lIODGES.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages
for an assault and false imprisonment. It appeared from
the statement of Mr. Platt, that the plaintiff is a cabinet-
maker, residing in Aylesbury-street, Clerkenwell, and was
some time in the service of the defendant, who is in the
same trade residing at Hoxton. The parties not agreeing
together, the plaintiff left the defendant, and commenced
business for himself. About three months after this time,
the defendant in company with a constable went to
the plaintiff's house, took him into custody, and dragged
him off to Worship-street police-office. After waiting at
the office some hours the case was called on, and when
the defendant was asked what charge he had to prefer, said
that he had been robbed of a piece of wood, and he
believed it was the plaintiff who had taken it. He ad-
rnittted the value was only eightpence. There was not
the least ground of suspicion against the plaintiff, and Mr.
Broughton, the Magistrate, instantly discharged him. The
defendant, when he ordered the constable to take the
plaintiff into custody, called out before his (the plaintiff's)
journeyman, " This is the rogue that robbed me of my
property, but I will stick to him." Under these circum-
stances the plaintiff had deemed it necessary, in vindication
of his character, to bring the present action.
A witness fully proved the above statement.
Mr. GURNEY said he could not justify the part the de-
fendant had taken. He might have acted, however, under
wrong impressions, which the Jury would take into their
consideration.---Verdict for the plaintiff, damages 20/.
Lord TENTERDEN sits to-morrow at Guildhall.

PREROG %TIVE COURT.

IN THE CASE 01' WHITMORE AND OTHERS V. STEVENS.

Sir JOHN Nrcuor. pronounced judgment to-day.
This cause was instituted to try the validity of a will
propounded to the Court as the last will and testament of
a Mr. Stevens, who was aged 82 at his death, and which
was in favour of the plaintiffs in this cause. The next of
kin conceiving that the will was not valid, applied to the
Court pot to allow probate. The property at stake is
considerable.

After hearing Counsel on both sides, Sir JOHN NICHOL
pronounced fur the validity of the will and codicils, con-
ceiving that the deceased was in sound mind, and capable
of making a testamentary paper when he executed the do-
cument propounded. The Court allowed Mi. Stevens
costs out of the estate.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

WIGGINS AND ANONIER V.. CAPLE AND ANOTHER.

This was an action brought for the recovery of compen-
sation for the injury plaintiffs sustained by the death of a
horse, value sixty guineas, which was caused by the negli-
gence and carelessness of defendants' carman. -
Mr. Serjeant WILDF. stated the case, the substance or
which was as follows waggon of the plaintiffs was
going at an easy pace down Bridge-street, when a waggon
')elonging to the defendants came up at a very rapid
pace, drawn by four horses, and the carman of the
defendants was not at the head of the horses, but
running on the foot-way. The great noise occasioned
by the rapid movement of defendants' waggon, frightened
the horses drawing: plaintiffs' waggon, and they imme-
diately set off in a gallop. After proceeding in this rapid
pace, one of the plaintiffs' horses fell, and defendants'

PRINTED AND PITELDINED BE MURDO YOUNG, At
THI SVN 071‘111, 112, &SAND, LONIHIN.