Star.
London, England, 1813-01-23 00:00:00

,'*- .. • liar RenalloitantriAl ill/ lir h.
""'"*"°L.. • --ii' .4 r., 11.1 y! ,
7"
. ' ' • ~ '''
Ijoirs.nol tlp.* e: co? ' •
thts.l;at an'aetion ciii the statute °Atte leth of.
n, to recover the penaltlea gust the defencfant,•
two usurious transactions: *Oa was clerk
cis Messrs. Beysons, timber-merchants ; an' d the de-
fenda%resided at Plymouth;•and had acted.as agent
there Mr them. About 12 months since, Messrs. Boy.
sons being pressed for monet, applied to the defen-
dant to disco ent them z bill for 41554 17e. sd.
This he consented to do; and deduCteil*fis.47ld.
which was the legal interest. But he also, ln' addition.
to that, charged a further sum of R 4 10i. Kir. b,iusp
a commissiont?jf.l-4th per cent. and a charge for
postage, &c. ~,He, at a subsequent time, discoudted
bills for thern4 the aniqunt of £lllB,for which ha
deducted arts. 11d. the legal interest being ref 5
14s. 7d. and the additiefial charge of £l5 14s. 4d.,
being one-half per cent. commission, and the rest fnel
postage of letter:, kw 1 These were the two usurious
*ansactions complained of.
. i —."
Mr. TOPPING, for the defendant, contended;irif
ere was no usury whatever in the transaction ; that
the defendant was
_justified-in making a charge of
Commission, in iidlieconierthd.l.4th and the half per
cent. which he haat:ls:used as eiteount ; andthat his
Charges were noeexteast,agant. - The present pioaticti
don arose out of the ingratitudeof Messrs. Boysont,
who, finding the defendant unable or unwilling to
open his funds to supply their wants any further, now,
after a lapse of 12 months, brought this action against
im, by which they sought to recover penalties to no
, ,ess an amount than £l3OO, the enforcement of
ivhich would consign him to a prison, and his family
io *shit and beggary.' He could call witnesses tek
rove these facts ; and than this was the reward now
ought to be conferred by Messrs. Boysonspn. the I
endant, for the services he had rendered them.
i Mr. frOI+ING was proceeding to call his witnesses,
when one of the Jury stared that it would be unneces-
lary, their minds being fully ma4e-appn the subject.
The SoescrtoaGesandies,hoever,'contended that
his Learned Friend, having °pastille evidence, was,
hound to go into it, and that hehicra right to reply. ,
1 Lord.n.Lessottoeott declared lairuseli el the same
opinion. -•- . • • .
Mr. 'roman then proceeded to call his evidence I.
and examined two witnesses, ageets, who stated, that
per cent. for extraordinary tri,uble was not mi4je
than the usual charge, aril was not unreasonable—in
many cases; per cent. and mote, was chArged.
The SoLlerron-Cenettat. replied, and contended,
that the law said no more than 5 per cent. should tilt
taken ; and by that law they were bound to Alec*,
41'he present defendant Jrad take% more than .5 nek
rent. and by that act had subjected himself to'the
penalties. • .. : _ - ,
Lord EtteenortmostAtildteiseci the Jipy at C011$11.•
derable length. He observed, this-was an action on
it. penal statute. It did not become him to sly he
viewed the provisions of that statute either with fa.
'your or dibfavour ; uhilst it remained in fcirce, both
hiniself and the Jary were bound to obey .it. This
statute prOvided, that no' person should, take higher
kinterest than 5 per cent. foe money lent. ,He-might
take any reasonable charges; but not undettWoutne
of agency, commission, or any other title, ;c0614 be.
;take any thing like higher interest. It inigbilii u
ilt.; ~
gracious for the Jury to hear fcem him an npitton
' contrary to their own, but when he cunsideredliut
duty he had to perform, the high and solemn oath-of
office which he had taken, he did feel himself called
on to state, and to endeavour to convince them,
tt .:ugh, probably, his labour to do so might prove
ineffectual, that no encouragement ought to be given
to the evasion of the statute. In the present case it
did appear, that, under the name of commission and
expences, the defendant had taken usurious interest,
and thereby subjected himself to the penalties. If,
however, the Jury should conscientiously he con-
vinced, from circumstances which they might dis-
cover, but which he had not, that the defendant was
entitled to what he had charged, they would say so
by their verdict.
The Jury, without hesitation, found a verdict for
the defendant.