The Sun.
London, England, 1830-01-20 00:00:00

lINGLISII

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY).

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR took pleas, demurrers, ex-
cedtions, and further directions to-day.
At the sitting of the Court his HONOUR struck several
of the cases out of the paper, in consequence of the absence
of the parties and Counsel. Many were ordered to stand
over oa account of the indisposition of Mr. Horne; a feW
vivre disposed of, and his Honour, having got through his
parer, rose at a quarter past eleven o'clock.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
GWYNNE V. CROSSWAITE.
This was an action to try the validity of a respondentia
bond for 3,0001. It appeared front the statement of the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, and afterwards confirmed by t! e
testimony of several witnesses, that in the beginning of the
year 1825 the defendant Crosswaite, who was at that time
an extensive ship-owner, applied to the plaintiff, a mer-
chant in Paternoster-row, for discount of some bills. This
application the plaintiff refused, on the ground that he de-
voted all his surplus cash to lending money on respon-
dentia bonds. The defendant then, after some further ne-
gociations as to the terms required, agreed to obtain three
other persons to join him in a bond of that nature, which
was accordingly done, the bond for 3,0001. executed, and
the money paid over to the defendant. Some time after
this Crosswaite, the defendant, became a bankrupt;
and when the plaintiff preferred his claim to prove under
the estate, it was refused, and an application was in con-
sequence made to the Vice-Chancellor, for an order to ad-
mit the proof. This application was opposed in the Court
of Chancery by the assignees of the defendant, on the
ground that the whole transaction was tainted with usury,
and that the plaintiff, when he requested to have a re-
spondentia bond, had a usurious intention in contempla-
tion, and to avoid the Statute; and also that the bond
itself was not a legal respondentia bond. The Vice-
Chancellor, at the time the matter was before him,
directed the petition to stand over, to give the plaintiff
an opportunity of trying two questions which these objec-
tions raised, viz., whether the respondentia bond was a
legal bond, and executed according to the terms of the
Statute, or whether the transaction was tainted with
usury. These were the questions now at issue.
Mr. BROUGHAM (Mr. Colman with him) contended at
great length that the transaction was merely a simple one
of lending money, and therefore the terms of the bond
clearly showed usury.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICK summed up, aid the Jury
immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff, thus esta-
blishing the validity of the bond.
In the course of the trial it appeared that one of the
parties to the bond was a clerk of Crosswaite, who bor-
rowed the money, and that he became a party at the re-
quest of his principal, and signed his name without know-
ing the nature of the instrument he was signing. The
LOAD Cum JUSTICI, in summing up, remarked in strong
terms on the impropriety of principals thus acting to-
wards their servants. Several cases of a similar nature
had recently some before him, but he hoped, after that
public notice, that mush a disgraceful practice would not
bs aga n heard of.