Star.
London, England, 1805-07-27 00:00:00

PHILIP •ND CHRISTIAN SPLIDT D. WALKER AND 30110.

The Plaintiffs are Hemp Merchants, in Cable•Rreet ;
the Defendants are Ruffia Merchants, and Sack.
makers. This aaion was upon a contra& for about
twenty tons of hemp, at 6sl. per ton, which were
Rated to have been bought by the Defendants, but
they not fulfilling their contrail, the goods were re•
fold at a lots of 441. 195. 1 td. and of intereß,
amouffking to 171. 143. 5d.; the furn, therefore, of
r 621. i4s. 4d. was depending upon this caufe.
Mr. ERIIIIIIII, for the Plaintiffs, obferved, that, on
the 15th of Oaober, 1803, Mr. Hugh Atkins, a Bro-
ker in the Ruffia trade, applied to them to purchafe
hemp for account of the Defendants, and, after fame
altercation, the price was agreed at 621. per ton.
The negociation being effeeted on Change, the Bro.
ker did not at the time deliver a contraa, and his
LordThip had very lately ruled, in the cafe of Far-
mer v. Robinfon, on a contraa for brimUone, that,
until a memorandum in writing was made, the an
thority given to the broker by the buyer or feller
might be recalled, becaufe the tranfaaion, above a
certain (mall amount, would be ranged under thole
prohibited by the Statute of Frauds. Fortunately
the prefent contra& would not devolve within that
daft; for the broker had made an entry in his
books. of the purcbafe by the Defendants and of the
Plaintiffs ; after which, the Learned Judge, he
trufied, would admit, that it could be neither coun-
termanded by one nor by the other. His Lord-
(hip had further ruled, that there might be a fup-
pletory contraa, which was not within the Statute ;
that is, that time, place, and circumflances might be
added to a contrail, as far as thefe fhould be condo.
cive to, and conflUent with, the original engage-
ment ; but a contraa could net in the fame way be
made abfolute, which was before conditional. He
underftood it was to be laid, that the article was de.
ficient in quality. This difficulty, in point of fa&,
he Should be able to remove with as much fuccefs

the objeition in point of law.
Mr, Hngh Atkins depofed to the time, and other
particulars, of the contrail ; and, on his crofs-ezami•
nation, he admitted that, although he made an entry
in his books, he had not fent a broker's contrail, in
the cuttomary form, either to the Plaintiffs nor the
Defendants.

Mr. Gisaitow fubmitted to his Lordfhip, that the
memorandum in the account book of the witnefs, was
wit fuch as the Statute of Frauds required to confli-
tute a valid contra& The cxprcfs words of the fta-
tote were theft, " to be made and figned by the par-
ties." The contrad mull, therefore, be figned either
by the parties, nr by fome other preen lawfully au-
thorifed. This private entry of Mr. Atkins was nei-
ther figned by himfclf nor any perfon.
Mr. Easains—" When a broker has a regular
authority to purchafe, and he makes a memorandum
of it, with his own hand, in his own books,it will richly
the Statute of Frauds. On the principle to which I
now advert, a will, in the hand writing of the teila.
tor, without being figned, is allowed to be valid both
in law and equity."
Lord Et Law RORO U If the Learned Counfel
for the Plaintiffs can produce any cafe wherein this
dodtine has been adopted in commercial contrads, I
will endeavour to give it its due weights but the
words of the A. are, " to be made and dined by
the panics r and 4. cannot exclude ;be effat of the

term had, in the Ilatute."—The PlAttlift *yea
nonfuited.

Lgootomo £$D co. t. a. AND j. NOROAN.
The Plaintiffs are bankers, and the Defendant,
George Morgan, is a Gentleman refiding in Buck-
inghamfhite. James Morgan is a Doaor of Divinity,
his brother. This atiion was for a bond for ta,oool.
Oyer of the bond and of the condition was prayed,
and the aril plea was aoa ij fames ; the fecond, a
corrupt agreement between the Defendants and the
late Mr. Alderman Newman, whom the Plaintiffs
reprefented, and a third, a payment of ufurious its.
tereft.

Mr. DALLAS for the Plaintiffs, (aid he was greatly
aflonifhed at the pleas which appeared on this record.
The defendants had enjoyed the free ufe of this largo%
(urn of money, to devote to their own purpofes, for
the term of ten years, and they were now required to
return it. by two gentlemen, Mr. Tate, a merchant,
and Mr. Cafwell, of Hertfordfhire, to whom the pro.
'petty devolved, in confequence of their intermarriage
with the daughters of Mr. Newman. Inflead of con-
forming to the condition of the bond, Meas. Mor-
gan thought proper to refift the demand, in a way,
he thourn, not very honourable to their charatier.
He was provided with their letters, profaing their
willingnefs to difcharge the engagement, but plead.
ing a temporary difability. The Learned Counfel
would, however, decline any feverity of obfervation,
until it (hould be rendered neceffary by the mode in
which the defence was condufted.

After the bond had been pt oved by Mr. Michael
Panther,

The Sotactroit GINItAL addrefred his Lordfhip
and the Jury on behalf of the defendants. He alert.
ed, that they had been very harfhly treated, in being
required to raife fo large a firm as r 2,0001. on a Glom
notice of 6 months. It was true that his clients had
had the ufe of the money, but a noble eftateconftituted
the ample fecurity for the bond, and it would appear
in evidence, that not only the legal intereft, but (rune_
thing more than the legal intereft had been paid for
the loan, and the effeet of this extortion mull be fatal
to the prefent aiion. Notwithftanding this advans-
tage, fo honourable were the defendants, that they
did not with to take advantage of this circomflanea
to defeat the claim of the Plaintiff.—all they wanted
was, an interval of is months from the prefent time
to raife the money, `after which the whole account
Ihould be faithfully difcharged. As thispropofal was,
not accepted, it becam, him, as Connie! for Marrs.
Morgan, to thew in evidence, that the plea of ufury
on the record was well founded. The money was
to be advanced by Mr. Alderman Newman on the
fecurity alluded to, in the month of March :795.
It fo happened, that the title to the effete' could not
be fubftantiated according to the forms prefcribed
by law, until June of the fame year. The Alder.
man had agreed, that whatever difficulty might arife
about the title, the intereft fhould be eftimared from
March, and hence an excels of intereft was paid from
the loth of March to the 23th of June, amounting
to a furcharge of 1741. above the legal intereft. This
had been paid ; and this alone furnifhed a competent
ground of defence. The Defendants faw the incon-
venience, and deGred Mr. Newman to invell in Ex.
chequer Bills the amount of the Loan, until the title-
deeds could be prepared; but he had not only de-
clined doing this, but inveiting it in any other form, or
depofiting it in the Bank or elfewhere, in a manner
that could be denominated an afcription of the money
to the purpofes of this loan. The fed was, that he
had been fomewhat too mercenary in the tranfaBiona
—he had applied a confiderable portion to the purr-
chafe of India Bonds, and thus had illegally obtained
double intereft for the fame money.
After this explanation, the Soticrroe-Gawattat.
repeated his propofal for the full payment in twelve
months, which was immediately accepted.—A Yee-
die wee tams for the PlaintiM II wriest, is the funs of
12,0001. aad the alb is the Courts qf a.aw and ignity
were referred to Mr:Tominz.