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

sent argument.
On the part of the assignees it was contended, by
Mr. DART, Mr. But., and Mr. MONTAGUE, that the
petitioner was not entitled to prove ; first, because as
a broker he could not act at all as a merchant; and,
redly, on the ground of the immorality of the tran-
saction. To establish the .first point, the learned
Counsel insisted on the construction of an expired
statute of King William. which was renewed by it
statute of Queen Anne, whereby it was enacted that
no person should act as a broker-in the city of Lon-
don, unless specially authorised by the Lord Mayor
and Aldermen, and subject to such rules and regula-
tions for good behaviour as they shall think fit and
reasonable. By virtue of this statute, the Lord
Mayor and Aldermen were stated to have made a
certain bye-law, and to have imposed on every per-
son who applied to be admitted a broker, the nects-
sity of executing a bond, with ceotain conditions, and
of taking an oath for the taithinl discharge of has
duty. The bye-law, it was argued, contained the
regulations to which the broker was to be subject,
namely, that he should not deal as a merchant in die
same transaction ; and this bye law being authorised
by the statute, had all the force of a positive enact-
ment. In support of the secood position. it was C 01)•
tended, that the bond and oath restrained the peti-
tioner from acting contrary to the bettor mentioned
rules and regulations, and consequently. that the trail
skttion in question was immoral, and as strch was
prohibited by the principles of the common law.
On the pat t of the petitioner, Str S. ROMILLY, Mr.
Come, and Mr. ROUPELL, contended.. that the gen-
tlemen on the &her side bad argued upon suppositim
of a bye law, which had all the effect of a statute law,
Whereas the statute in question, wil'oh was purCly a
loc!tl steno, give no power alratever to the city of
London to make bye laws, but only to prescribe re-
gulations as to the conditions on which a person
should he allowed to act as a broker.' It was, indeed,
a most gtatuitoos astumption that there existed any
bye lase, and if suc:i bye law lied actually been
made, it seemed exuaordinary that the bond should
take no notice of it. All that the Mayor and Alder
men h -d power to do was, that as soon as they found
a man acting contrary to the v.:minions of the bond.
they could entorce the penalty against him. but it
had been said that there was an oath, and that the
Court would nut assist the petitioner to recover his
demand, in violation of that solemn engagement.—
This was much the most srtious part of the case, not
only to the individual concerned in this question, but
to every one engaged is toercataile transactions; for,
if the leatned gentlemen wete right in their construc-
tion of this each, there was not one mars who acts as
a broker in the city of London who o as not perjured.
Bar what were the words of this oath ? 'Paley awe,
YMI shad sincerely promise and swear taithatdly to
discharge your duty as a broker. between parry and
party, without fraud or collusion, to the best of your
knowledge." It was admitted, that it a man acted
as a broker and principal, and took a larger price
than he would have taken in any other character, he
had violated this oath ; but it was material to state,
with precision, what brokers engi.ged to do, and in
what instances they were perjured if they did other-
• wise. They undertook, first, to keep a book, or re-
gistty, rind to enter every contract within three days,
with the names of the principals; and, on demand,
to produce such entries, in older to prove the truth
of
.the contracts—secondly, they _were to produce a
silver medal, to slim that they were authorised to
act in the character of brokers -thirdly, they were
rot to deal for themselves, or for their own or any
tither broker's benefit or advantage, and were not to
employ a deputy. The question, therefore, came to
this: whether the petitioner had done any thing to
tea.l:er his transactions with the bankrupt illegal, so
as to prevent him from recovering his debt, on prin-
ciples of public policy. The learned Counsel' asked,
what the law was that he had violated, which made
those transactiens- illegal ? It had been said, that a
man wrest not early on trade, holding ant false cc-
lours, in other words, making false representations to
the world. But what was the case here ? One might
as well say, that a man could not Tacorer who writes
up, as many persons do, " This is the cheapest shop
in London." The fact was, the learned gentlemen
had arl;tied the case of persons acting as brokers and
merchants in the same transaction ; but here, a con.
siderab:t. part of the debt arose out of other transaoe
':lions. N.) less a sum than airf3OtiO was for loans of
money, in which there was no mercantile transaction.
whatever. Upon the whole, the arguments on the
-other:side were not warranted by the facts of the case,
or the principles of equity, and the petitioner was
.• clearly entitled to recover.
• The Lostn CHANCELLOR said, thatahis was indeed
• a most important question to the mercantile .world.,
His Lordship had already ordered a question on the
statute of James, as to dormant partners, to be made
the subject of a case for the opinion of the Court of
King's Bench, and he hoped. that when that question
came to be argued, it would be considered that the
Court of Chancery was not merely a Court of equity
in Matters of bankruptcy, but was bound to enforce
the provisions of the several statutes. In point of
,fact, that question had greatly distressed his Lord.
•ship's :predecessors, and was justly thought a most
ditlicult,question. The present. he repeated, was a,
most important case, and lie was quite satisfied that
'he did not know enough of .she facts .to decidelt....