The Sun.
London, England, 1834-01-15 00:00:00

KING V. HAMLET.

The argument in this case was resumed by Mr.
PEPYS, who appeared for the defendant. He con-
tended that the transaction could not be called usu-
rious unless it could be proved that Mr. Hamlet re-
ceived for his advance more than five per cent.,the
legal rate of interest. If Mr. Hamlet parted with
his goods at their full value it was impossible to
call it an usurious dealing, and he could prove by
the evidence of competent persons that the prices
charged by Mr. Hamlet were fair trade prices.
Even Mr. George Robins, who was examined by
the plaintiff, stated that the goods were valued by
competent valuers; and Mr. Nobler, Mr. Evans,and
Mr. Snow, shopmen in Mr. Hamlet's house, swore
that it was usual with them, after valuing the
goods, to ticket them, as was done in this case, and
it was Mr. Hamlet's invariable course of dealing ne•
ver to depart from the prices attached to each ar-
ticle. They also swore that the plaintiff, Mr.
King, came to Mr. Hamlet's shop, and that he was
at perfect liberty to select any goods in it to the
amount of 8,0001., and that he was not interfered
with by Mr. Hamlet in the slightest degree. Other
persons also were examined totally unconnected
with Mr. Hamlet, who all declared that the prices
charged were fair, and not exorbitant. He
should call his Lordship's attention to the
evidence of Mr. Newland, by whose testimony he
thought he should be able to satisfy his Lordship
that the transaction had been commenced and pro-
ceeded in with the full concurrence of the plaintiff's
father, Viscount Lorton. Mr. Newland in this
transaction was the agent of Mr. Hamlet, and a
Mr. Farrell for Viscount Lorton and Mr. King. It
was well worthy to be remarked that Mr. Farrell
had not been examined by the plaintiff. He thought
it the wisest course not to do so, for he very well
knew that he would not have supported the bill, but
confirmed and strengthened the statements in the
defendant's answer. Mr. Newland in his evidence
swore that Mr. Hamlet refused at first to advance
money, but afterwards said, if Mr. King would give
proper security, and if the plaintiff's father, Viscount
Lorton, consented, he would advance goods instead
of money. Mr. Newland swore also that he entered
into communication with Viscount Lorton, who
had no objection to the receiving of goods instead
of money, provided the advance did not exceed
8,0001. Viscount Lorton in his evidence did not
deny this; and he thought that it was clearly
Viscount Lorton's intention to obtain an assignment
of the security, by which he would be able to exer-
cise a control over the reversionary life interest in
the family estates. Under these circumstances he
felt confident that the plaintiff could not establish
the slightest claim to the relief prayed by the bill,
and therefore he hoped his Lordship would dismiss
the plaintiff's bill with costs.
Mr. KNIGHT and Mr. HUNT were heard on the
same side.

HIS LORDSHIP postponed the hearing of the reply
till to-morrow (this day).

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 14.

RE PALMER.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL showed cause against
a rule calling on Mr. Palmer, an attorney, of
this Court, residing near B;rmingham, to show
cause why he should not be struck off the roll, The
application to the Court was founded on the 224 of
George 111., against which, it was alleged, Mr.
Palmer had offended, by allowing an unqualified
person to practice as an attorney in his name.
The COURT were of opinion that the best course
would be to refer to the Master, to make such in-
quiry as he might think fit and report thereon.
The matter was accordingly referred to the
Master.