Star.
London, England, 1826-01-14 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTMINSTER, JAN. 13.

COLEMAN V. SIMNUINDS.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, a retired
tradesman, against a Gentleman of fortune, residing at
Paddington-green, to recover 10001. being the:amount
of a bill of exchange drawn by one Lisle, and ac-
cepted by the defendant, payable twelve months after
date, and indorsed by De Lisle to one Meago, a tailor,
who also indorsed it to the plaintiff.
Alter the acceptance had been proved, Mr. SCA HIATT
addressed the Jury, and stated, that he should prove
beyond a doubt, Meago had obtained the bill for an
usurious consideration, and that the plaintiff was the
holder of the bill for a colourable purpose.
Augustus De Lisle, the first witness, said he was a
foreigner. He was a literary Gentleman, and the au-
thor of the Opera of Agamemnon. He cam.) to this
country a few years ago upon a dramatic speculation,
which did not answer his expectation. In November,
1823, being in want of money, he applied to the de-
fendant, who bad been obliged to him on a former
occasion. He requested the loan of 20004 which the
,1• fendant consented to let him have in two bills, pay-
able at twelve months. Having applied to Meago to
discount the bills, he was referred to Mr. Coates, a
draper, in St. Martin's-lane. Coates told him the bills
would be discounted, provided the witness woad con-
sent to give a discount of 3751. The witnes., after
some hesitation, consented to give thst sum. ' Near,
at Coate:s house, discounted the bills, deducting only
five per cent. De Lisle, however, gave a cheque to
Coates for the difference agreed on.
Cross-examined.—He admitted that be had been in
prison in this country and in France for debt, and per-
sisted in saying, whin he first applied to Meago lie was
referred to Coates. Meago was pre ent when the wit-
ne‘s paid the money to Cotes.
Mr. BILOUGEAM called Coates, but he disl not appear.
Meago WAS. then examined, who stated that he was
in the habit of disconntin bills. He took the usual
discount on the bills in question. It was s .methiug
about 981.35. He denied that he had received one
farthing more than the regular discount, or that he had
refer red De Lisle to Coates. In 1823 he • was going
abroad, and he put the bills into the hands of the plain-
tiff, in order that they might be presented in his absence.
He received from the plaintiff a cheque on Chambers
and Co. for 20001. The cheque was not dated, and he
held it as a counter security. He also took bills to the
amount of 1,1501. After his return to London the
paintiff gave back one of the bills and kept the other,
which was the subject of the present action.
Mr. SCARLETT, in answer to the above witness,
called a clerk in the house of Messrs. Chambers, in tiep-
tember, 1824. The plaintiff kept cash at that time in
the above firm, but his balance up to the time of the
failure of Messrs. Chambers, did not exceed 2601.
Mr. BROUGHAM, in his reply, contended, that a case,
of usury had not been made out, and that the plaintiff'
was entitled to a verdict as the holder of the bill for a
valid consideration. _ _

The Jury, under all the circumstances, found a verdict for
the defendant. _ _ _

The remainder of the day was occupied trying a question re-
specting the right of the inhabitants to be assessed to the sewers
of Poplar Marsh, called the Isle of Dogs. The question was local.

SURREY SESSIONS, JAIL 13.

IN THE MATT= OF JONES, MARSHAL OF THE KING'S

WINCH.

Mr. THESSIGISR, on behalf of the Marshal, applied to
the Court to rescind an order made by the Magistrates
in the Sessions of January, 1824. The order was made
under an Act directing the Ma gistrates to classify the
prisoners in the County Gaol, in order that provision
should be made for them according to that classification.
It was the opinion of an eminent Counsel who had been
consulted on the subject, that this order virtually sus-
pended the operation of a rule of the Court of King's
Bench, made in Lord Mansfield's time (under the
authority of an Act of Parliament), empowering the
Marshal of the King's Bench to commit to the County
Gaol, for one month, any prisoners who might attempt
to escape from prison. or who might be guilty of in-
subordination in the prison—as by the rule laid down
by the Magistrates no provision was made for such pri-
soners in the County Gaol. It was necessary that the
power of the Marshal in this respect should not be ob-
structed : he therefore applied to the Court to have the
order rescinded. _ _ _ _

The Chairman (Mr. Scams's) said that the Act in
question had been well considered by the Magistrates
before they made the order. At present nothing could
be done in it. as there were only three Magistrates on
the Bench. He regretted that the application had not
been made on the county-day, when there was a full
Beach, who might have reconsidered the order, though
whether theywould have rescinded it was another matter.
Mr. Thesstota said his object was sufficiently an-
swered, for this motion was chiefly made with the view
of enabling the Marshal to apply to the Court of King's
Bench for a mandamus.
The application was refuted.
‘Vnen the prisoners-were brought up for arrAignment.
there appeared among them a miserable-looking old
man in the dress of a sailor, charged with stealing a
jacket and trovisers, and some other articles of wearing
apparel, from a ship in dock. When asked in the
usual form whether he was guilty or not ? he replied,
"I am guilty, and distress was the cause. There is no
use in denying it. I am guilty."
The CHAIRMAN—I must tell you, that if you persist
in that plea, your punishment will not be less severe
than if you were tiled and convicted. So do not make
the plea under the notion that you will obtain a lighter
punishment id consequence. You had better consider
of it. If you choose to withdraw your plea of guilty,
I will allow you; but if you persi4t in it, it will of
course be recorded.

The prisoner then withdrew his pia of guilty, and was removed
from the bar.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, JAN. 13. -
PRATT V. HILLMAN.

This was the only case of the slightest interest that
Came on to-day, in which Mr. PAIL and Mr. F Pot:
Loa: wee br ,ught specially. It wits a _case which
turned upon the construction of a clause in the building
Act. It appear, d, that the plaintiff
Land defendant hau
two bon .cs situate on Highgate•hill ; and one of the
patties being desirous to make such alteration, is his
house as would tender it went ,y his tesid,nce, hai
proceeded so far as to rendez the party-wall hetwe. n
the two bon es insecure. In cons,qurnce tf th Mi.
Pratt had a survey made, an.i the p esent case came on
in shape of appeal against the certificate of the survey-
ors, the jurisdiction being veste i in -those cases is the
County 31.1giurates.—The COURT disunl,.ed she Appeal.