Star.
London, England, 1816-01-25 00:00:00

• '
He did not know, Indeed, that he should be satisfied'
with his own decision. If there were no more in the
'ease than the bond, by should think that would be no
objection to the petitioner's recogeriag, because he
would be liable for the penalty on* bond. But the
Act of Queen Anne had been cited, And by that Act
no man Was to act as a broker unless authorized by
the Mayor and Aldermen, and cler such regula-
tions as they should think fit ant reasonable. His
Lordship apprehended, therefor&, that the question
was, whether any regulationi hot been made, and
what those regulations were ? It was material to
ascertain, whether the band and oath were to enforce
certain regulations, or whether such bond and oath
were to be considered as stating what the regulations;
were ? He was disposed to think that the Mayor and
Aldermen had made regulations, and sought to se.
cure them by this bond and oath. The next point
was, whether those regulations were such as they
were empowered to-make, according to the true in-
tent and meaning of the Statute ? were such
(as the Statute authorized. then the question might be
brought to this :—..that brokers, being prohibited from
this species of trading by those regulations, they were
also prohibited by the Statute. His Lordship,
therefore, wished to know what those regulations

were, &last° ?
3ir SAMUEL ROMILLY observed, that the word
regulationt did not occur in the Statute. The words
of the Statute were :-11 With such limitation: and
restriction: as the Lord Mayor And Aldermen skuuld

think fit and reasonable."
The LORD CHaucat.con.•••44 Undoubtedly thole
words may require further consideration. We have
argued the case all along as if tba word regulation
had been employed in the statute. I should wish to
know, therefore, what restrictions and limitations

have been estahlished?"
His Lordship then stated, that he had spoken to I
the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas this morning
on the subject of this case, who observed, that he had
known this objection taken to a broker's action at
Nisi Pries, but it had been over-ruled. As to the
Statute, the Chief Justice declared, be had never
heard that it existed.
Mr. BELL said, that the 13th Edward 111. expressly
authorised the City of London to administer oaths to
their brokers; the question was, what oaths they
were to administer ?
Oidered to stand over till the several records have
been inspected.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, lAN.
SIR THOMAS rwsrea V. TAYLOR AND OTHERS,
ASSIGNEES OF RENJAM/N WALSH.
The proceedings on the trial of this cause before
Lord ELLennonournt, at the Sittings after Term, at
Guildhall, we reported at considerable length. The
amount of damages sought was nearly sesooo, but
the sum recovered by the plaintiff was only /400.
The ATTORN EY. GEN ERA L, OR behalf of the plain-1
tiff, now moved to set aside that verdict, and to ob-
tain a new trial. No point had been reserved, though
his Lordship had sbewn great anxiety that the im-
portant question should be put into a shape for more
solemn decision. It had been suggested, that relief
might be had in bankruptcy in equity, and. most
probably, any other party could have there found a
remedy; but from the peculiar circumstances in
which the plaintiff was placed, the Court of Chancery
was in a manner closed against him, more especially
after the action had been brought and decided.—
Under these circumstances the only :rep Sir Thomas
Plumtr could take was to apply for a new trial, the
SURI of ,E4OO given by the verdict being but a small
part of the demand he had made, and which hr
hoped to be able to establish. The principal fact.,
were known to the Court ft am the prev,ous preceed-
ings, in a hick the defendants had sought to deprive
the plaintiff r,f the monies he had obtained from Mr.
B. Walsh, soon atter his eight ; it was not therefore
necessary now to state mote than that the present
suit had been commenced to rccowr several sums of
,E 4.00, ,CO2, 5e1:,`.2.;, 1000, and a• few smaller
:mouths paid by Mr. Walsh specifically wish the
l3ank notes of Sir I'. rlamer entrusted to Mr. Walsh,
for the purpose of buying stock; the three last of
which the defendants (the assigoets of Walsh) had
, obtained by actin i)s at law. The first sum of seloo
stood upon a q;fieretit ground, having been reamed
to the a:signers merely upon requisition, and for that
the ve:dict had Leen given ; with respect to the
others, time Chief Justice was of opinion at the trial
that Sir T. Plur.er could not compel the assignees to
refund monies they had secured by means of the
peculiar force alai efficacy of the Winks-opt Laws.—
The object of the present motion was, to bring that
point to A deliberate decision, and the plaintiff was
ready to. have it discussed in any way the Court
should think most convenient.
Lord ELLIMBORMIGEI thought it would be better
to have the question argued in the form of a special
case, as it was not improbable that Mr. Maroon,
Counsel for Me defendants, would be instructed on a
future tl?.y to move to set aside the verdict for £.1,00.
The ATIORN EY-GENERAL was ready to accede to
the wishes of the Court.
Lord ELLENIinitOUGS: enquired if consent was given
by the other party ? bet Mr. MARUSATT obserireid,
that he had received no instructions, and had net
seen his Attorney.
Lord ELLENSOROUOIL—Then a rule to spew cause
must be granted, and on a future day we shall learn
whether the defendants will consent to a special Ease.
1100 Ra St. DANIELS, F-92. •
The facts of the case (which was tried at the Sit-
tings after last term) were these :—The plaintiff,
being a merchant, resident at Alicant, entered into
a contract with the defendant, Deputy Commissary-
General of the British Forces, for the supply of
20,000 eatderos of wine, at a fixed price, to be paid
for by bill, upon the Treasury in London, to be given I
at:the time of the delivery of the wine. Soon after-
wards a part of the contract was completed, and the
plaintiff, by his clerk, informed the defendant, that on
'.the succeeding day he might take away 11,4,00cantaros
on the performance of the terms of the contract. Oa the
day appointed, the defendant sent some soldiers, who
removed the avine by force, the agent of the plaintiff
objecting to give it until the bills were given an pay..
mem. Mr. Moore suhsequently made a demand of
the bills by letter, but they were refused. on the
ground that the defendant had no power to pay until
the whole contract was fulfilled. The verdict was
for she defendant, on .the ground That the plaintiff
had given the defendant a licence to take away the
Wine, and that be .could .oat maintain tract, which