The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-07-10 00:00:00

GUILDIIALE.

MILLI P. SetILTIIORII.
The ArroaNky Gracia'. stated thit to bean
action for the Wan& of accounts between the
Plaintiff and a young man of the name of Hicks,
a nephew of the Defendant, whom he had chosen
to set up in business at Braintree, and for that
purpose had written to the Plaintiff to supply hi►n
with such articles as he should want to begin trade
with, which the Plaintiff would not furnish unless
the Defendant would guarantee the payment of
the bill when the credit should expire, and wrote
to the defendant a letter to that effect, to which
the defendant wrote the following answer :--
" Rnry St. E.lrminds, 23d Jan. 1809.... Dear Sir,
In answer to yours of yesterday, respecting Mr.
Hicks, I now inform you, that I will answer for
the payme►n: of goods sent to him, to the amount
of 1001. for six months; and I hope after that
you will not think it necessary for me to be ac.
countable, for you will be acquainted with his
manner of doing business, and that, as well as his
payments, will be satisfactory. Yours, In."—
Signed by the Defendant, and directed to the
Plaintiff. In consequence, and on the faith of
this letter, the Plaintiff trusted this young man to
a considerable amount, about 1901. and he had
paid several sums of money ; but there now re.
mained a balance of 411. due to the Plaintiff,
who now claimed it by this action, and he was
at a loss to guess what the defence was ; for the
amount of the sum, as well as the duration of ere.
dit, was within the limits which the Defendant
had prescribed in his own letter; that was, the
slim was under 1001. and the time was within six
months.

Upon the evidence, there was no doubt of the
facts being as stated by t►e Attorney-General.
But

Mr. GARROW and Mr. Laws took objection to
the form of the declaration, which was for goods
sold and delivered by the Plaintiff to the Defend-
ant, and which was contrary to the fact ; for the
goods were sold and delivered to Hicks ; they con.
tended that the declaration should have been
upon the special contract, stating, that in can..
sideration of the Plaintiff Belling and delivering
certain goods, to a given amount, within a given
time, to Hicls, the Defendant would pay for
them, Sre..
tt.
Lord Er.t.txsooucn coincided in this opinion)
the Plaintiff was therefore nonsuited.

BRASIER V. FOSTER.
Mr. G Li:now stated this to be an action to re-
cover the sum of 341. being the balance doe to
the Plaintiff upon the accounts between them.
The Plaintiff was a hard-working man, who drove
a waggon elul team for a gentleman in London ;
he also hail a house in Cro.s.street, Blackfriars-
road, and lit out lodgings. The Defendant was a
neighbuur, and a butcher, Mho was in the habit
of borrouing sums of money to help him to carry
on his business. On the last occasion when he
burrowed money, he came weeping on account of
the want of it, and added, that if be could raise
141. hi could dear 101. by it, by buying cattle for
slaughter ;on which the Plaintiff's wife lent him
that sum, which she-bad act aside for the doctor ;
and the Defendant admitted that he was then in.
debted to the Plaintiff in 341. having had in all
401. and paid only Gl. Being afterwards called
upon to pay, he said he had no money, and was
not likely to have any ; that if he was arrested,
he would go into a gaol, where he could live as
well as if he was out, and his brother and sister
could carry on his business.
This case was sworn to, for the Plaintiff, by
Mary Weston and Maria Brown, two lodgers of
the Plaintiff.

Mr. MaarArr, for the alendanf; maintained
that this action ouuld not be supported, because
vitiated by usury. That the Defendant was in.
deed in the habit of borrowing sums of money
of the plaintiff's wife, but paid constantly an in.
terest of 6d. per pound per week for every sum he
borrowed. That he borrowed several sums, and
constantly paid at the rate of 6d. per pound
every week by way of interest—just 1301. per
cent. per annum !—Once ho borrowed 201.
aid returned two for the interest ; so that
he carried away only 181. for his 20 pounds !
He proved this to be constant- practice by a wit.
ness of the name of Joseph Collins, a servant of
the Defendant, and who had seen the transactions
between the parties, and often carried this int*.
rest, and paid it to (he Plaintiff's wife.

Lord EILENBOROUGU told the Jar y, that un.
less they were convinced the witness, Collins, was
perjured, without any apparent motive, tbe.De-
fendant was clearly entitled toe verdict.
The Jury withdrew, remained out of Court
about 40 minutes, and returned a verdict tor the
Plaintiff—Damages 341.

PERJURY.
THE KING V. ALZSAHDEH.

Mr. Gaallow stated, that the present Defend.
ant, a Jew furniturc.brokcr, had been concerned
in a foul conspiracy to defraud unsuspecting
tradesmen. He had been In partnership with his
son, who carried on the trade of a butcher, in
Jddition to that of a broker, and had, by arti.
fice, contracted debts which they never intended
to pay. Out of one of these transactions tho
present indictment for perjury arose. ' Young
Alexander was sued in the Court of Common
Pleas, at the sitting after Trinity Term, 1607,
for a debt thus contracted, concerning the rt.
pairs of a house, when the father, in furtherance
of a preconccrted' plan, came forward, and swore
his son was of nonage, tkat he had never heen in
partnership with him, that he never knew of his
son having a gig, and that he had never consulted
him about repairs. The Jury at that time were
convinced of the conspiracy ; but Lord C. J. Mass.
field observed, that if they bolieted the son was
under age, they must And their verdict for the D.--
fondant, which they did of necessity. The
Learned Counsel then said, he should prove the
father had sworn falsely, when he-said, " I know
nothing of my son having a gig," " I never haJ