Star.
London, England, 1826-06-07 00:00:00

IMPART'S GRIMSTRAD IN RE HOWARD AND GIRDS.
_ _

The Low) CHANCILLLoR entered the Court this morn.
ing with an immense mass of papers and books, and
stated, that he was now prepared to give judgment in
the matter of Mr. Grimstead. As he should not, how.
ever, be able to go through the whole of the case to-day,
he should reserve the filet judgment until some subse-
quent occasion. The matter came helot e him under very
singular circumstances, and he should think it his duty
to go fully into the evidence on both side-, stating his
reasons as he went along.' It appeared to him that the
main question to be decided was, whether the sum of
4.0,0001. which Mr. Grimstead proved under the first
Commission, and proposed to prove under the second
Commission, could be so proved; or whether, c.n the
other hand, the objection of usury could be applied to
the whole transaction? In considering this question, he
should put oat of his view the motives by which Mr.
Shaw was actuated in the choice of the aisig-ees, tinder
the first and second Commission; and he should alio
put aside other various points which had been introduced
by a sort of side-wind, and which he thought were ir.
relevant to the main ques ion upon which he was to
pronounce his decision. His Lordship then referred to
the book, which, during the argument upon the case,
was so frequently commented upon, called the Pass-
book. In this book were made the several entries of
annuities upon which Mr. Grimstead's money had been
said to have been laid out. His Lordship also alluded to
the very voluminous correspondence between Mr. Gabbs
and Mr. Grinstead and others, particularly adverting
to that letter written by Mr. Gibbs on the 9.h October,
1819, in which the word "interest" seemed to have been
used in a different sense from " annuities." There was
no man, perhaps, more ignorant of accounts than him-
self, but he thought it was impossible for any one, how-
ever ignorant of, or conversant in these matters, to look
at the pass-book, and say that the word " produce" was
meant to be the interest of purchased annuities. Upon
looking at all this do:umentary evidence, the whole of
it led to this question—Did Mr. Grimstead know that
his money was not actually laid out in annuities? or did
he know that he was receiving more than legal interest
for his money? The oral evidence was also extremely
important to be considered; he meant particularly the
examinations of Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Grimstead. He
was sorry to say it, but his duty compelled him to de-
clare his opinion, that he could not believe one word of
what Mr. Gibbs had uttered. Having gone so far into
the case, his Lordship postponed the further considera7
tion of the matter until Thursday morning. He hoi ed
then to be able finally to dispose of the case.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Just 6.
DUGAN V. SOLLAND AND OTHERS. ASSIGNEES.

This was an action by the plaintiff, clerk to the oim-
missioners of Paving of a certain divi.ion of the parish
of St. Pancras, to recover from the defendants, a signees
of Messrs. Marsh, Stracey, Fauntleroy, and Graham,
the sum of 1,7504 the amount of certain Exchequer
bills paid into their hands previous to their bankruptcy,
and for which they had given a receipt acknowledging
the receipt of those Exchequer bills on account of the
Commissioners of Paving. At the trial a verdict 'tad
been found for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the
Court on a special case.
Mr. POLLOCK, on behalf of the defendants, contended
that this case was not within the meaning of the Gene.
ral Paving Act, 57 Geo. 111. c. 29, and rested on grounds
wholly different from those of " Frost v. Bollard and
others," in which the Court, on sec. 51, on Friday last,
decided that the plaintiff had a right to recover from
the assignees the whale amount of the money paid by
him into the bands of the bankrupts. In that case it was
in evidence that the bankrupts had been appointed ban-
kers to the Commissioners of paving, and had been in
the habit of receiving the produce of the rates. and as-
sessments by them raised, and therefore the Court held
that under the words " other persons," they were in-
cluded as treasurers, having received the money raised
by the rates : but in the present case, he (Mr. Pollock)
submitted that the payment of the Exchequer bills into
the house of Marsh and Co. must be considered as a pay-
ment from an ordinary customer into the house of his
bankers. By the 45th section of the local Act, the Com-
missioners were authorized to appoint, from time to
time, one or more treasurer or treasurers, for receiving
all monies to be raked for defraying the expensei of
paving, but such appointment must be signed by five or
more of the Commissioners. In 1810, Mr. Fauntlerof
was appointed treasurer, but although the notice for
that meeting was signed by five commissioners, the
appointment was signed by the chairman only, and
therefore such appointment must be void ; but if the
Court should be of opinion that the defect in the ap-
pointment was cured by the subsequent Act of 57 Geo.
HI. c. 29, even admitting that these Exchequer bills
were to be considered as the produce of rates and assess-,
menus, another question would arise, whether the debt
ought to be discharged out of the separate estate of Mr.
,Fauntleroy, or the general estate of the bankrupts? As
the question was of great importance, he trusted that' if
their Lordships should be of opinion that the verdict
ought to stand, they would give the defendants an op-
portunity of taking the opinion of a Court of Error.
The LOU) CHM James—Then you must consent to have it
'stated that the 1,7501. was the produce of the rate and assessments.
Mr. Pou.oox—Certainty, my Lord.
The Loan Cane Jurrtca—Then, Mr. Chitty, you on the other
side ought to have it stated in what way the Exchequer bills have
been disposed of.
Mr. CHITTY could not consent to that. He con.
tended, that the 47 sec. of 57 George 111. e.:'9, was
t ot confineXto treasurers, collectors, and officers only,
but extended to all persons appointed by tie Commi
sioneri for the purposes of the Act, and therefore the
verdict should be confirmed.

The C.Y.T hating consulted together for some time,
Th. LORD Cuter Justice stated there was some little difference
between the case of " Frost v. Holland and others" and the present,
and the Court would take time to consider.