Star.
London, England, 1827-05-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, Mar 5.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expres.ed his intention of
making some arrangeMent respecting the days cm which
the different species of business was to come on dating
Term. Some discussion took place in consequence, be-
tween his Lordship and the Bar, in the course of wh'ils
it was understood that motions should in future
lie
made on Wednesdays, and that Thursdays and Fridays
should be devoted to the hearing of appeals in the
House of Lords. His Lordship promised to commu-
nicate his final determination respecting these arrange-
ments on Monday.
At a subsequent period of the day.
Mr. CHINE asked to have a ?action of his Eked
foe Monday.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he was determined that
nothing should impede the regular course of the bu. 4•
ness unless circumstances of peculiar urgency and ne-
cessity compelled it. He was convinced that much in-
convenience and delay had been occasioned by a con-
trary practice; and if he could prevent it, that prac-
tice 'boold not again prevail. This determination would,
he wassatisfied, be found to be not less convenient to
Counsel than it was just to the suitors ; because, when
it was known that the rules of the Cotht were not to be
suspended or broken through on every occasion, Gen-
tlemen would be ready to go on with their business,
and no time would be wasted.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, NAT s.
Sir ANTHONY HART, the new Vice-Chancellor, took
his seat ea the bench this morning for the first time

unce his appointment.
Several motions were disposed of; and an application
having been made to his Honour by Mr. &miaow, to
have certain exceptions taken off the file, on the ground

of informality,
The Vice CHANCILLOR observed, that he was not
much disposed to pay defetence to mere tactics. These
ezeeptioos were to be taken off the file merely becatfse
they should have been filed prior to and not after a
certain proceeding in the cause had taken place. If the
Court were to grant the application, what would be the
consequence, but delay to the cause and expense to the
parties concerned in it ? It would be necessary for the
excepting party to petition the Court for leaie to file
their exceptions afresh: these exceptions must then be
re.engrossed; and after all this delay and expense, the
parties would be just in the same position that they stood
at this moment. His Honour was therefore of opinion,
that be must refuse the application; bat as irregularity
in the proceedings of the Court were at all times to be
checked and reprehended, he directed that the costs of
this application should fall upon the patty guilty of the
ittegolarity complained of.

COURT OF WO'S lIRKII, Mar
SOLAILTE AIM ornias, ASsIONSIS OS ALMA IP.
maLVILLs. •
The SOLICITOR-GIINZIAL moved, on behalf of the
defendant, for a rule to shew cause why the verdict
shouW not be put aside, and a new trial granted. There
'were other actions to a large amount depending upon
the same point as the present action, which was tried at
Guildhall before the Lord Chief Justice, who, he hum-
bly conceived. bad misdirected the Jury. Alsedi had,
from 1821 up to his failure in 1825. been in the habit
of discounting bills for the house of Maltby, Brewitt,
and* Co. through the intervention of Brantley, a bill-
broker, who procured a Mr. Wagstaff to guarantee the
payment of the bills, *lnch he did by a separate letter,
and then Bramley got them discounted by Alzeda.--
Wagstaff found means of being introduced immediately
toAlzeda, who afterwards discounted some bills through
the medium of Bramley,but more through the medium
of Wagstaff, until he failed in 1825, ohm he was in-
debted to Alseda in a large sum. Bradley was also
indebted to Alzeda, and his affairs -going on badly, be
wrote to Alzeda in January, 182 S, that he was a ruined
man, but that Alzeda should lose nothing by him, if
be would remain quiet. Alzeda waited until July,
1825, when be received another letter from Bromley.
offering to bring him undoubted good bills to discount
at 5 per cent. on the amount of wt ich be might ales
deduct 10 per cent. to be put to the account betw
him and Bramley. The Solicitor-General said this wire
not usury, because it was in liquidation of a bout:tide
debt between Alzeda and Bramley. In consequence
of this ktter, Alzeda, during the remainder of 1843
and the whole of 1824, discounted the bills brought to
him by Bramley. deducting the 10 per cent. so that
in October, 1824, the whole of Bransley's debt was
liquidated ; and in December, 1,2001. overpaid.
It was important to Bramley that Alzeda should
continue discounting, and therefore he proposed,
that if Alzeda would continue to do so, he would
allow him an additional IL per cent. on the amount of
the bills, 0 go in liquidation of the debt due from
Wagstaff. On this footing, several bills, including
those in question, were discounted, until Alzeda's far-
lore in 1825, weekly accounts being kept between them,
by which it appeared that one per cent. was cartied to
Alzeda's account, in addition to the allowance of the
.51. per cent. discount. The regular commission is only
a quarter per cent. and Bramley owed so money to
Alzeda, and had no concern with Wagstaff's debt. The
words of the Statute of usury, 12 Anne, are, 66 that all
and every person which shall take above W. per cent."
The Act does not specify any particular party from
whom the money is taken, and therefore we are not
merely to consider the intention of Bramley. but we are
to consider what was passing in Alzeda's mind. His
Lordship, on the trial, said, 6' 11 Bramley did think
himself under an honorary obligation to Wagstaff 's
debt, I should be inclined to say this is not usurious ;"
but the point was, wht Cher Alzeda did not, by means
and colour of Wagstaff's debt, contrive to get more
than 5 per cent. on the discount of the bills.
• Lord TENTIIRDEN—The bills were discounted for
Maltby, Brewitt and Co. who got the full money for
them, deducting the 51. per cent. discount, and the
quarter per cent. commission. The additional money
was paid by a third person.
The Soraerroe Gzezast.—The matter is of con-
siderable importance in point of value.
The *COURT, after conferring together, granted the
rule Nisi.

CaDC COL—D.III:MM D. COLOIML DiaIIKLEY.
This was an action for ciiminal conversation with the
plaintiff% wife, reported in our Pape: of the Bth of
March, in which the plaintiff obtained a verdict for
o le thousand pounds.
The SouctTort GIMERAL applied for a new trial,
and after ieniarking that every body was surprised at
the amount of the damages, as there was evidenc- of
levity in the conduct of the Lady, who had been only a
very .hort time acqi.inted with the defendant, stilted