The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-25 00:00:00

THE KING V. MALT AND OTHERS.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, their Lordships would
recollect that they had appointed this day for passing
judgment upon these defenthnts, two of whom were then
waiting.

Lord TEN'PERDEN-There are only two more London
new trials, had we better not dispose of them fist, Mr.
Attorney ?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL mentioned the case now, to
say, that his Learned Friend Mr. Hutchinson had an
affidavit, stating that Fox, one of the defendants, was ill
of a typhus fever, and that he had been bled three times,
rather a curious remedy I should think, said the Learned
Counsel.

Mr. ADor.rnus said, he was Counsel for the defendant
Hodgson, and if there was a probability of the case going
over to Michaelmas Term, he did hope the Court would
allow him to be liberated on giving bail.
Lord TENTERDEN-Why I think that is only a reason-
able requtst, but it must be good bail, very good.
The ATTORNET-GENERAL-We have tried every pos-
sible means in our power to give the other defendants no-
tice to appear to receive. judgment, but without success ;
they carefully evade us. Your Lordships will therefore
think it necessary to stand over for some time.
Mr. Anotritus asked what sum would be required ; he
hoped tke Court would not press hard upon the defendants,
at the slme time he was aware of the necessity of their
Lordships seeing that justice was not trifled with.
Lord TENTERDEN said he considered the share that
Hodgson took in the conspiracy in somewhat a more fa-
vourable light than of the others; the Court would there-
fore take his own recognizance of 2001. and two sureties
of 100/. each, or four of 501. Sufficient notice, how-
ever, must be given to the prosecutor.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
NOVEL APPLICATION..-.NASH V. HOLLLND.

Mr. Serjeant TARDY said he had to make a rather no-
vel application to the Court. He was instructed to move
for a rule to show cause why a warrant of attorney given
on an annuity deed should not be set aside, on the ground
that the deed showed usury on the face of it. The object
of the application was to prevent the entering up of judg-
ment. The alleged usury consisted in a covenant having
been given for an annuity of 1201. for a consideration of
1000/. ; the grantor undertaking to insure the continuance
of the said annuity during the life time of three nominees,
and further to insure the lives of the annuitants. Ile
(the Learned Counsel) need scarcely remind the Court
that the fundamental principle upon which all annui-
ties were granted, he meant hazard, was in the present in-
stance entirely done away with, inasmuch as the grantor
had not only given his own personal security, but also
the collateral security of a third party—the insurance
Office ; so that it was obvious the principal (1,0001.) was
completely removed from anything like risk. The cove-
nants furnished a remedy, not simply against the grantor,
but also against the insurance office.
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE-4 cannot help thinking that
nevertheless the annuity is hazardous ; if the grantor were
to die, the principal would of course be lost : all, there.
fore, upon which you rely is the collateral remedy, which
is given by the covenant, against a third party•to recover
the 1,000/.
Mr. Serjeant TARDY—Your Lordship will perceive
that the covenant secures the payment of the annuity, not
simply during the lifetime of the original grantee, but also
during the lifetime of the two nominees; and this not on
the responsibility of the grantor alone, but likewise on
the imurance office. The grantor is already dead.
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—Then, I suppose., Mrs. Nash is
the executrix of the grantor, who you say is dead, and
does not wish that the warrant of attorney should hang
over the assets?

: Mr. Serjeant TADDT—Precisely so, my Lord.
The Court eventually granted a rule to shew cause ; at
the same time recommending the Learned Serjeant to offer
to make a repayment of the principal with interest, as it
was the opinion of their Lordships, that after the delay
inseparable from the present proceedings, that this would,
in all probability, be the result of the application.

FOSTER AND OTHERS V. WESTWARD.

This was an action brought on an agreement between
the parties, to recover a considerable sum of money payable
on a certain day, together with interest on the same.—
The question had been referred to the master who had de-
cided in favour of the plaintiffs.
On a former day Mr. Serjeant WittnE obtained a rule,
calling on the plaintiffs to shew cause why all proceedings
in the cause should not be stayed on the payment of the
principal without interest.
Mr. Seijeant SPANKIE this morning showed cause
against the rule. The Learned Counsel's arguments rested
entirely on the presumption that the agreement, if not
coming under the precise denomination of a bond, was
yet, to all intents and purposes a mercantile transaction;
and, therefore, that interest was clearly recoverable.
Mr. Serjeant WILDE having been heard at considerable
length in support of the rule,
The COURT was of opinion that, although there could
be little doubt from the facts of the case that the party
making the agreement intended it in the nature of a bond,
that yet it could not be construed to be such an instru-
ment, inasmuch as it involved no penalty. Their Lord-
ships were, therefore, unanimously of opinion that the in-
strument in question, so far from being a bond, ought
simply to be regarded in the light of a bill Littler the seal
of the parties. The only question for their consideration
was, whether or not interest were recoverable on money to
be paid on a day named. They concurred in thinking that it
was not, since, in that case, it would be clearly recoverable
on rent, which was also made payable on a day named.
Though cases had been sited in which the Court had de-
cided differently, their Lordships still thought it was dan-
gerous to multiply exceptions to an established rale.
The stele Ras accordingly la* absolute.