The Sun.
London, England, 1826-06-22 00:00:00

LAW INTEUIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY....—{Tiets DAY.) .

]BACK U. STACEY.

Mr. Haar stated, that in this ease the Court had,put it to him
to say when his client, the defendant, would consent to try two
issues in this case ;, he had consulted with tria client; and had now
to say, that he was ready to try them at the next 'shires for the
City, of ;Norwich.
Mr. lionNE was quite surprised to hear this, inasmuch as the
defendant had agreed to a reference. A correspondence by letters
had taken place between the partietv Ind thiplsititiff hid acceded
to the very terms of reference proposed by the defendant. The
last letter written by the defendant liesumed that the judgment of
the Court had been given, and therefore that he-would not abide
by his agreement to a reference.
Mr. HART would not go upon any conditions in any letters;
the Court bad desired him, the last time lw was here, to inquire,
Whether his client would try the issues or not, and, by his cheat's
direction, he had now to inform his Lordship that he would try
them.

tie Loansme observed, that if Mr. Hares client had been in-,
formed the Court had given judgment, he had certainly been mis-
informed, because it bad not.

, Mr. HORN/ said, the defendant had retired from his agreement
to a reference, because he thought he had got the judgment of the
Court in his favour, by its directing issues. lie could not
help characterising such conduct as being morally a breach
of good faith, and particularly as Mr. Hart had un-
fairly on a former- occasion, tried to prejudice the Court against
the plaintiff, by stating it was him that felt a reluctance to agree
to a reference, whereas he had all along been most anxious to hare
a reference. lie (Mr. llorne) trusted the Court would girt that
judgment both upon the motion to dissolve the injunction, and to
commit the defendant for a breach:of it, that the strictest rules of
the Court would admit of.

Air. Haar had no objection to this. He felt satisfied that the
Cmirt would net he induced to do injustice from any thing Coun
sel said.

His LORDSHIP said he would put Join in writing his judg-
ment, in the course of the morning, and deliver it to the parties,
upon coming into Court to-morrow.

IN TUN lIATTER or SIR OKSOONT PAC! TIJRNER.

Mr.' llEau) in mentioning tide matter, said it waieitretnely:
irksome, that 00 all occasions it devolved on hint tint to begin the
attack. Yesterday he understood the other side were ordered to lay
before his Lordship, at the sitting of the Court to-day, letters which
they said had been written by Dr.' Powell ; but though mid-day
had passed: by, not a syllable had been by the gentlemen
on the other side.
Mr. Tarstovrt stated, the short answer to *Mr. Heald wai, that
the letters alluded to, were written by Dr. Powell to Messrs.
Collier and Birch, late solicitors of Sir Gregory, in the latter end
of MS, and that these gentlemen hid rehired to part with the
originals; but they had furnished copies of them, which he was
now ready to read. _ .

llia LORDSIiir preferred' seeing the originals to any copies, and
therefore requested the gentleman, ►n whose possession they were,
to be so good as to show theni to him in his private room tomor-
rowmrning, before he came into Court.

Mr. Taxi Levy stated that his client had Also made an estimate
of the expellee of trying the traverse, which amounted to 9501.
10s. 6d.

His LORDSHIP desired likewise to see the estimate.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.—(Tnis DAY.)
MIAJO V. SIMMONS. ,

This was an action for a bill of exchange for 1,000/. accepted'
by the defendant in December, 1823, and payable to the order of
a Mr. Dc Lile in twelve months. The defendant pleaded that the
plaintiff had received more than the legal interest for discounting
it, and was therefore debarred from recovering the amount, bow-
ing,yereived it under usurious circumstances.
"Mr. Guam se stated the case,—the acceptance of the defend-
ant being admitted,
Mr. Scataxic addressed the jury for the defendant, repro.:
bating the transactions altogether, as usurious, to prOve whigki
Mr. De-Lile was called and examined by Mr. Chitty. 110 was:
manager of a French theatre, in London, in 1823 ;—had an in'.
troduction to Meer before that time; having then occasion for
money, be applied to plaintiff to discount-some bills for him...-.
Meajo told him he should apply to Mr. Cates ; having obtained
front the defendant two bills of one thousand pounds each, one
for twelve months, and another for eighteen niontlis
he took them to 'Coto, who demanded -317 ht. for discounting
them, witness offered him MO/. ; Cotes said, if he should get the
hill for -18 months changed to HI months, he would then discount
them for 15 per cent. Witnewdid so accordingly, and received
two ulitc/to at different simes-Aitoo Meajo,'nn Ihnworollefi 14 ilk,
fur the amount, 'and paid 850/.. as' ilitieOunt, part of which was
given to Meajo but all above .5 per 'he gave to 't;ottio.
The defendant reeeived Ito consideration at 'afar the bills.
• Cruse.examined by Mr. GtlaNltY.-111 was made a bitokrtipt
in two dayi after these hills had been discounted: He learned
by the newspaper that he-was Made a•bankrupt as a bill.broker.
lfe had been arrested by an hotel-keeper, where he resided for
a short time, and imprisoned for three week. in the King's
Ilendb, and a few months in Florsenninger-lane gaol. Be
had been arrested for pOlitical opiniona in France, and gloried
in being imprisoned forlwo years ; he was liberated on the resto-
ration of the King ; he blight be known byfour, or five names;
Lile was a title—Le Fevre Wk. his proper name ; he may hare
been called Count De Lile through courtesy.
Re-examined by Mr. SCA ancrr—lle wrote several plays for
the French Theatre.

Croat exatiaineit by Mr. (iu 101 XL—ff. never made an offer to
Cotes to give evidence on a fermer trial respecting those bills;
bet Cotes urged hith to give testimony on that occasioth
'SeVeral'Clerki frinn Ifammersley's bank were called to prove
the payment of Mesjo's checks tulle Lile.
On behalf of the plaintiff, Williim Cotes was called and ex-
amined by Mr. OUItNILY.....WaII a linen-draper in St. Mar-
tin's,lane--knew the Plaintiff; who hit a tailor in Brook-itreet.—
De the applied to him (Meajo) to have the billi discounted,
and told him he' would pay hint handsotnely if he should get it
done. Witness introduced ' him to MesjO'for that, purpose, and
got the hills discounted; he received it gratuity of loffh .fronl
De tile, of which Meajo knew nothing; he never made a stipii,
lation with Dc Lile to discount the bills for 15 per cent. Meajo
never received more than 5 per cent: for the bills.
De Lile had offered him 1004 to give testimony tot the trial at
Coleman v. Symmons.'

Cross-examined by Mr. Scaturrr—fle had been subptenaed
to the former trial, but did not appear on *MUM of ill health,
besides, he had a great aversion to' appear in law Courts ; he had
receivedlio/. as a gratuity from De Lila. for having introduced
him to Meajo on a former occasion, to get bills discounted.
Three witnesses were examined, who swore, that they knew
De Lile for several years, and that they did not think that he
ought to be believed on his oath.
Mr.,Scaitt.wrr addressed the Jury respecting this testimony,
and kr. Guittott.- replied.
The Loin Okla."' Jurrica having read the evidence to the Jttry,
told tbem that if they believed De Lilo, they should give a verdict
for the defendant, as by his account the transaction was usurious;
on the contrary, ifthey believed Cotes, the verdict should be for
the plaintiff. The Jury withdrew to Consider, which was for the
plaiutiff—Damag-es 1,0951.