The Sun.
London, England, 1802-12-29 00:00:00

Ist, That the attack was 110 t leilt on the credit
of the house, but to Hatfield on his private account.
-2d,. That the agreement to replace the stock with
legal interest was usurious.

The Witnesses, and some of the Plaintiff'a let-
ters to Hatfield, proved the intimacy between them;
but this was subsequent to the loan of the stock.
It was also proved, that the words on the agree-
ment, 4 per cent. on the real capital of 35001. were
the Plaintiff's hand-writing.
But no evidence was given to prove that the
instrument stood originally without those words,
' per cent.; nor that the Plaintiff had originally
intended to lend the stock to Hatfield only ; nor
that he had said he lent the soool. stock to Hat-
field ; nor that he had said. he lent it to Hatfield,
without the knowledge of the Dennys's ; nor that
the Defendants were ignorant of the loan till May
last, after Hatfield had absconded ; nor that Hat.;
field was to bring any capital into the partnership ;
nor that the agreement was originally signed J.
Hatfield, or otherwise than as it stood at the trial ;
nor that the word Hatfield was written in a dif-
ferent ink from the words Dennys and Denys.
Mr. Serjeant COCKELL made a. most able and
forcible reply. He said he should dispose of the
objeftion of usury, betore he touched on the other
circumstances of the Case. How did the agreement
stand? with legal interest. There was nothing. in
that which made it illegal. No man could con.
tend, that if the Plaintiff- only took legal interest,
he meant to take usury. What did the other
words import, viz. 4 per cent. on the real capital
of 35001.? The Plaintiff had a tight to calcu:ate
interest on what sum he" pleased, if he brought it-
within the dividends, which would have been, on
the 50001. stock, tiol. 'This he did ; flit his cal-
culation make, it only 14.a1. Is Mr. Nucella, there-
fore, a man seeking`to extort money, when he is
rot. per ,annum under that sum which he has a right
by law to demand ? Can this be called usury i•
He then stated to the Jury, they were not toitake
into consideration the Plaintiff's intimacy with
Hatfield, suliequent to the Loan; nor Hatfield's sub-
sequent adventures. That at the time of the Loan,
he was the accredited and managing partner of the
house ; and no suspicion then attached on him :
That as there was no prof that Hatfield was to
bring any capital into the House, 'he had a right to
say, he was to bring in no capital at all ; and that
he v.as taken into partnership merely in consider.
ation of his genius and extraordinary talents :• That
on the Plaintiff's transferring the Stock to Hatfield,
it was immediately transferred by him to their
Bankers, to secure what they had advanced to the
partnership. That Hatfield's letter to their Ban-
kers, directing .the sale of the,Stock; states, piece it
to our Account, that is, the Partnership's Account,
the 134nkers forthwith advised Dennys, Hat-
field and Dennys of the sale, and of the produce
.come to their use. \The Defendant's defence there-
fore was against equity and good conscience ; and
would go to undermine all partnership transactions
in this great commercial city. And lastly, he in-
si,ted, that the wards "for Denny:, Hatfield and
Dennys, John Hatfield" at the bottom of the in-
strument were all written at the same time as the
body of it, and with the same ink, which tc,9tild
manifestly appear on inspecting it ; and that the
word "for" necessarily called for the words
Denys,' Hatfield and Denys, John Hatfield, as it
would have been nonsense if it had stood, " I ac-
knowledge, &c. for J. Hatfield," (the signatures.)
And therefore the attempt to impeach the agreement
was not a fair one.

Lord ALVANLEY summed up the Evidence, and
the jury without retiring gave their Verdict for
the Plaintiff, with Damages 3,6611. t7s. 6d. and
Costs of Suit.

ILDHAIL.—The Christrnas revelries on Mon-
' day_produced some bUsiness; which employed the
attention of the sitting Alderman.
A poor blind Scotch piper was brought before the
Magistrate, charged with being found is; a cellar of
a house, Without-being able to account for his being
there. The poor piper, on being questioned, con.
fessed he had been playing and drinking until the
loss of wind and strength of liquor had deprived
him of recolledion—in short, he was blind drunk;
'and on.leaving the public-house, he, by one of those
strange and sudden shifti of fate to which drunken
men are. subject, found himself shrink rapidly from
the surface, and, as hisupposes, landed in the cellar
from whence he was taken. In his fall, however,
the drone of his pipe was spoiled, and the bag ma-
terially injured ; a serious loss at this season. He
had been upwards of years from the place of
his nativity, been blind from a boy, and did not
know he had a relative on earth.

A young man, of the name of Nash, was brought
up, charged with having been fund in the bed of
a man and woman, who,' on their return from 'a
Christmas day's festivity, were surprised I,t fau:iing
their bed occupied by the Prisoner, although the
door of the room was yet locked. It turned out
that Nash, like the Piper, had also been blind
drunk ; 'btit instead of falling into a cellar, had
fallen up into a one pair of stairs window. He had
slept at the house the night before, and being intoxi-
cated, his companions assisted. hi►n in at the window.
His father attended and stated to the Alderman, that
he on Thursday sent his son (who has lately return-
ed from Sea) to receive some money in the Borough :
he had heard nothing more of him till he found him
in custody, and the money all gone. He lamented
the impossibility there appeared to be of bringing
him to ad like a rational being.