The Sun.
London, England, 1833-12-14 00:00:00

COURT OF KINGS BENCH, DEC. 13.

FOX, QUI TAM, V. KEELING AND NECK.
This action was brought upon the Statute of
Usury (12th of Anne) to recover a number of
penalties. The defendants were charged with
taking usurious interest on bills of exchange. The
statute gives treble the sum usuriously taken, and
the whole of the treble penalties amounted to 6891
M. BARSTOW stated the case. The question
with regard to the usury on the bills was clear.
Messrs. Keeling and Neck carried on some time
ago the business of bill discounters. They were
also attorneys, and their practice was made subsi-
diary in bringing a multiplicity of actions. Their
terms for discounting bills were 35 per cent., and they
had a peculiar mode of transacting business. Per-
sons who were compelled to pay 35 per cent. signed
a paper by which they declared they had only paid
5 per cent. The business of these gentlemen was
extensive. A Mr. Newton was a very constant
customer. From time to time he discounted bills
with one or the other of them. Newton paid no
less than 21. Is. 6d. for discounting a bill of 351.
drawn by himself on Joyce and Son. He should
call the witness and prove the facts. Something
had occurred with respect to Keeling and Neck,
which made it doubtful whether the penalties would
be paid. Mr. Keeling was a person going through
the rules of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. The
Learned Gentleman then called his witnesses, after
which Mr. HUTCHINSON replied for the defendants,
and the Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on all
the counts in the declaration—Damages 6891.
The Counsel for the defendant gave notice that
he should move for a nonsuit.

PREROGATIVE COURT, DEC. 13.

(Before Sir JOHN NICHOLL.)

IN TIIE GOODS OF THE REV. MR, BOLLAND, DECEASED,

In this case an allegation was offered to the Court
propounding, as the last will of the deceased, who
was incumbent of the Rectory of Fitcham, a paper,
dated in January last, but not completed, which
was opposed on the ground that the deceased had,
in December, 1832, duly executed his last will, dis-
tributing his large estates, which consisted of real
property amounting to 40,0001., and a personalty
of 60,0001. By the facts in the cause it appeared
that the Lady of Baron Bolland will be largely be-
nefitted by the testamentary acts of the deceased.
Dr. LUSRINGTON and Dr. ADDAMS supported
the admissibility of the allegation on the ground that
on his death bed at Brighton the deceased referred
to the unexecuted will propounded, and that before
it could be fetched from his rectory the deceased died.
The KINWS ADVOCATE and Dr. DODSON opposed
the admissibility of the allegation, contending that
the paper propounded being an unexecuted docu-
ment could not operate to set aside a regularly ex-
ecuted will.

Sir J. NICIIOLL said, looking to all the circum-
stances of the case, the Court was bound not to
defeat the intentions of the deceased, and it would
be departing from the principle held in favour of
regularly-executed papers if it did not reject the
allegation, as, if all the facts stated in it were ca-
pable of proof, they would not be sufficient to in-
duce the Court to give effect to the unfinished
paper.

PALACE COURT, WESTMINSTER, DEc.l3.

HORDER v. WOLLIN.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who
is a professor of music, residing in Clement's Inn,
against a gentleman, who had been admitted an at•
torney, but had not taken out his certificate, for
the tuition of his daughter.
The plaintiff claimed 2/. 12s. 6d. for one quarter,
besides 6s. 6d. for Griffin's Concerto, and 2s. for
the overture to Tancrcdi, making in the whole a
claim of 3/. Is.

This demand was resisted by the defendant, upon
the following singular grounds—namely, that it was
an entire contract to teach the young lady the art of
thorough bass, which was contended to be the basis
of music. It was taught without the aid of a mu-
sical instrument, and through the help of a musical
slate, pupils were taught to read it as one would
read a newspaper. It was stated that an eminent
composer had never touched an instrument, and that
Rossini had composed music in bed. This being
an entire contract, it could not be apportioned; and
therefore the plaintiff could not recover anything,
even for the music supplied.
The Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff for 3/. is., upon the ground that the
plaintiff had offered to teach the lady thorough bass
without any extra charge, which he would have
done, but could not get his money from the de-
fendant.