Star.
London, England, 1825-05-06 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

-•

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, MAY 5.
MONEY a. LIQD.
This case has been already part heard. It was a bill
filed by the plaintiff, William Taylor Money, Esq. M.P.
against the executors of Captain. M'Leod, of the East
India Company's merchant service, for an account of
certain adventures in which they were jointly concerned.
'The executors resisted the claim, on the ground that
there had been illegal transactions between the parties,
which vitiated their contracts. These transactions re-
lated to a consideration alleged to have been given by
Captain M.heod to Mr. Money, for his influence with
the ship-owners, whereby he procured, in the year 1804,
the command of the ship Walthanutow from the East

India Company.
Mr. HART was heard in reply. He referred to the
case of ". Blachford v. Preston,' 8 Term Reports, be-
fore Lord Kenyon, and expressed his surprise that so
good an equity lawyer should have stretched so far tl e
principle of public policy, and considereV the East India
Company as a limb of the State. The doctrine, how-
ever was adopted by Lord Resslyn, 3 Vesey, 173 ; by
Sir William Grant, 7 Ve,ey, 470; and by the Court
of King's Bench,.in the case of " Card and Hope,"
2 Barnewall and Creswell, 661. But these were bar-
gains between owners and Captains; and it is a ques-
tion whether a third person negotiating, even with the
supposed privity of the Captain, vitiates the agreement?
In the latter case, Lord 'Chief Justice Abbott did not
sty with Lord Kenyon, that the Company, being a limb
of the State, must be considered to be within the same
protecting statutes; but that the commercial character
of the nation makes the appointment to the command
of a ship in some degree a public appointment. The
doctrine that all offices should be given to the fittest
persons might be carried to aa. inconvenient extent.
Lord Eldon had his mind once so impiessed with this
maxim of deter diptiori, that be believed the sale of a
solicitor's business for mosey was restrained by it. He
(Mr. Hart) -conceived there was no contravention of
public policy in Mr. Money's promising to recommend
Capt. M'Leod to Sir Robert Wigram for the command
of a ship, and taking money for his recommendation.
If it failed, the promise became ineffectual ; it was
nudes. pactrist, and the plaintiff might be sued. From
the case of " Richardson v. Mellish," 2 Bingham, 229,
it was apparent that the doctrine in antecedent cases
bad been too strongly and broadly laid down. He
contended, that if the agreement stipulated that Mr.
Money should use his influence, there was nothing in
such a contract which contravened public policy.
Mr. GRANT, on the same side, observed that the ille-
gality of the contract could be maintained only on three
grounds :—t a. That it was forhiddra by theesompany'sl
by-laws; but the byelaw referred to was only binding
upon those subject to the Company—not upon the
plaintiff. 2d. That it was illegal by,S:atute; but the
sth and 6th of Edward IV. dil not refer to the East
India Company, but to offices under the Crown, which
was proved by the passing of the 49th Geo. 111. c. 126,
which extended its provisions to the offices of the Com-
piny, and which Act passed in 1809, subsequent to this
transaction. Sdly, The general policy; and this pot.-
tion of the law related to the Company as territorial
posiessors, not as a commercial body, in which capacity
the were considered in this case.
The VICR.CHANC6LLOR, in giving judgment, said,
that the first question in this case was of feet (as to the
allegation that Captain Bl'Leod entered into an tgree-
mem. whereby he gave Up a large share of profits, in
consideration of Mr. Money's procuring hint the com-
gland of the ship); the second was a question of law
arising out of that fact. Ie respect to the law, Lord
Kenyon held that the East India Company was not a
mere trading company, but partook of a poll ical cha-
racter; and that it was-contrary to public policy that
commands of their ships should be sold; but in Card
and Hope's. ease, this opinion' warnot closely adhered
to. . Lord. Chief Justice Abbott thought thatshe public
bad an interest that the command of a ship should be
%,:ento a proper person. and that if it were corruptly
posed of the law would void ir. As to the facts,
there was much dispute. The contract, dated Feb; 1,
1904, was signed by Mr. Mosey, Captain hi‘Leod. and
Mr. Hotson, the purser. It bound the parties by an
Obligation of honors I this species of obligation was
strange ; it was unlikely to be used if. the transaction
were legal. It then set out the proportion between the
sties of the benefits accruing from the voyage, which
generally known to be large. Mr. Matey
vies to have two-thirds, the others one.third be-
tween them. Thieve oast, beim'', Mee been some