Court Of Chancery, Tuesda...
The Times, 1824-01-21T00:00:00

ZA m EPIPo .'W.r ?fDVAT pursuedi tihe argument which badl been adjouirned from Yesterday, against thle motion for an injunctLion in this case. It brd bzran, said that the plaintifF had had notice from the assignei~s of Lee., thazt he should niot pay the bill: huit that could be no grouind Clr preventing the defendanit front recovering the bill takten for ?ioiia *fldo cansideration. As to thte matter of' fact, uponi the nakedl stalei- maznt foind in the plaintiff's bill, he hadl emnploved Lee for-at least a year anid-a half andn the business upon which he einployeI him was avowedly to raise money for the utse oftepantf nbeans of billsq cr loans, or any other available men.I perdtat in that ti-e thev had raised at least 40,0001 h r.anifdcae that the Afri~anand Cape of Goodl Hope Copniserciie aslil hzad ro e-xistence but in the brain of Mr e.I ewr,to travel out of.the record. as the other side had done, he couldi prodluce to the Court one of the bills of the firm beautifully engraved, whic.h would meet that declaration fully. But he dlid niot feel him- ,-,lf aut horized by the Irregularity of his opponents to follOW th3t Thuc lioRD CrnANcEr.LOs ask-ed why the learned counsel men. tioned themn; either he wa-s or was not entitled to introduce that mat- ter. Hle wished to k-now if the cause hiad been calledl on this morn. Ing, in the Courts below ? The solicitors repilied that it was the third in the paper. 'Ur. LOVAT returned to the arTgUMent. Hle shlowed ifrom the contants- of the answer that the defendant m-ost positiviely dedied all k-a3wIedge of the nature of Mry. Lee's agencY, or that he had beean dit-missril from the agenoy before the date of the bill now in action. andc upon which a verdlict hiad in all jsrobabifiity, by this hoer of the' morning, been pronounced for the defendant. "'The plaintiff had moived in Novemnber ismt for thnis injunc tinn in the V"ice-Chan, rellor's Court, and the miotion was dismnissed. 'Chey had suffered far seals to go over subsequently-wh'hout aby application; they had lrauched their case in ai coiurt of,eonumon lawv, and they were not no-.w entitled to disturb the PrOzeelin-gs there, whiich were nog going on, if tehoy were noat by this time determiined in favour- of the de- fendant. T'he LORD-CITAIMIT.0ros wished to know uipon what merits the pla]mtiff went before the Vrice-Chancrellor. He could not understand wrhat equitv thereewas in this case, whlich was unfit.for the decision of a cooirt ofconiinon law. Mlr. Lov 1kT felt satisfied with the suggestion of the Court- He wouldl Pss' bv the other merits of his case, and content himself withi obszvit~,tht nt ony oght he laitiff not to have an injuinction tO say he etsr, bt h woud n.r e entitledl to stay execution. If tdmeou-r thulddifer fom im uon hislast point, he felt sure that he pesentmb'ton wold b dismssedwith the costsi not obnly Ofliappicaiba,hueals thoe cstswhich occurred in I hat before dr.AGAsR felt that he lhad been unfortuinate ins his first address to tJhe Court, for he thought he- had shown a very, sufficient quity for the application. The bill showed that after discavery une Lee's bnkruptcy, the defendant had notice that the plaintiff-was* c0- tindnot to Pay the moniey. The defendant had kitq.~rtedge of the fraud, which was plain by hit Owtl -admis-sior~ rhit hie hiad taken double secutitv' for the Pt5y'rent, arid that 11'Iiad eff'ects of The ban4pts to th'e amnount of 7001. imore t!1aji the value- of the bills. Thei cLoD CIIAXCItL.5.O asked if thle defendant admitted- pay. rlnat if.2Iis account by thetmeans ~tw for the first time, inention- e-din tbdlcause. - dir. Loi-.r said, s for lftorn that, the defendanit declaredl, that if he recovered tbs': am tofteblsiwodntcvrtedbt due to him. 11'~to h il twudio oe h et The Lawn Cul - CLO said, that the groundI laid first for the Matinn W3, tili n'o considieration had been given tor the-bill : nowv shlat the val ae of thec bill had beeiinimre tliani paid, whichi raised an ntreyFacs, lie was at a loss to know liow the plaintiff could to, dae,ernmine liseiights of eithier party than by lsrodtic- tri .cat hIc ses ow adlvaniced in evidence before th ejuirv. As to ~" ochof t,ioweertliere dlid not sieem to hini to be any equity at all. ?hrre was a gre t da said about blank hills issued by the plaintiff`, and illd u byLeeas his agent. It wvasin some cases dlifficuilt to sat- hat as p cciejustice'in cases whiere blank] bills were given tabafiled u atthediscretion of another party : but If blank bills had een ivenforLiee to fill sip as the agent at' Mr. Clauightoin, the assinee coud peten norigt to sucli bills.- And as to the liabi. Thy f te painiff heremmbeed hena question of theu kind was trie atNixiPs-n.sat Dery Lor asfield dccl4irc(d chat the party for whom hills given in bank were filled uip, wa-s just as, much b-and as in at bill foally drawn, anti afterwards regularly accepted. To shoirten the eaie, however, by, this tinms the action in the lower court was now.; either in oDurse of trial, or it was diecideti by verdict. Ho ordered, therefore, that the plaintiff hiere, in case the verdict lwere pronounced against hint, should pay the nioney into court, give the tdafendants the costs of the motions unsuccessfully miadTe before th' e Viee.Chanceilor, and unties take to abstaini front proceeding to a writ of error. EX PAUTE GSRXarSTEAD TIT RtE CtOWVARD AND Glans, flANK. T1heCourt htatd pereniptorily-fixed thisdtay for the hearing of this petition , to the postponemnent of all other business whatever which Might occur. The SOLTCIToR-GENTEnAT. began thAe pleadinigs. Mr. Griitustead repres-ented himsLelf to be a claimant under th-e commission for a ha- lance ef 32,0001L, beir.e the residue unaccountedt tor of a. suits pad its hardi cash to Messrs. Hloward and Gibbs. in their ca,acity o;fan nulty-brokers, the other part of that surn, having been laid out 'by tharm in the purchiase of annuiCtes, as the bialanice was in. ithe samne nananer to be exhasisted for the advantage of Mtr. G-rimsgtead. The objiection to this claimn under the comtnission was, that the transac- 'tions between Mr. Grimsteisd and rthe firm were taintedI with usury, ar.d in the saewn atie Mlr. Grimsteatd was actually, in prisoni for acceptances given by Ihim in accomTmodation of hloward and Gibbs to the amiount of 25,10801. These were thle suibstan. tial facts in question between the assignees aiid Mr. Grlim- stead. His bill stated thiat hiis faxther, in 1777, possessed an hin- depenmdent fortune of thie value of about 1;0,00fl. ; that thiis firtuine descended to him, and that until these transactions withi Howard and GM-be, the p-nmperty htadmrdnaineil fixed in the same funds in wvhichi his father had first pilaced it;. that the petitioner had formierly re. sided at I,athler het.,4.d ustslWitoDi tlint lie hail been a lnagistrate of~Surrev.,nniarliresecfed in thecut'tii iiTiururyo Howarif rand,Gbs and then he proceededi to shiow by what means h-e firstbecasae acquiainted with tiiem. Tliepetitioner admitted that hte was tnot a mian of business..that. lie lived uipon hiis patrimiony, and that his situation in life, habits, and knowledge-of the world,were caLasla1ted. to lead him to place great confidence in those personis. Tite question of the degee of confidence, more or less, which lie was filit-iv 'mtnthira to place nit the good imiitli of Howard andl Gibbis, woufd. 'be imaterial in thie question now to be laid before thte Court. The petitioner went on to say, that he was introdunced to Messrs. VO-wrd. and Gibbs by a Mr. Thomas Walsh, sod. thise represents- tu'.m of this person which led to the intercourtie was, that dir. Grim.. 'steall mighit mateA;ally increase hiii incomie by laying out hiist 'money in annuities:z anti a variety of transactions were agreed upon anrcl eirred into effect, which exhatusted the first part of thiis sum of CUMho. The petitionier said, thiat of those transactions; tie paSs- beak- was thle only evidenice or docsimetit of denmorri;ration which -went between themi. The petitioner declared thart he was ledI to trust 'hem as his stewards or agents--that lie chiefly confided in Mr. James G;ibbs, who was expert in business, and a ntan of very- great address. The securities whiich, they had given hiiti were tieposited at first in the hands tif di r. Thiomas Walsh, but his increasing con- fidence in Mir. G-ibbs causedt him to transfer tite secuirities to the hands of the lastnamed gentleiman. In tiis state of confldence,he was easily led on to sign accepratices, the first of whichw. was7,0001. Such was the ductile sutterofimind in which Howard and Gxibbs found thiis uinfortunate easiycountry gentlenman. The petitioner admnittieth, that altheugrh he knewv that the pass-book wvas tlie only evidence of the Xrare of the accouint betweeni them, he iteglected to examine it with do-te catution, andt ill consequience of that neglect, the book liadt been -vt prreparel as to fuirnish matter of evidence against him in the suit wiuich rook- place at law. But thie petitionier contended, that if the Pass-boo0k Were fairly examined and corrected it svould show a ha.- l-Lrce due so him of 36,11771. The assignees, 'towes'er, took a tlif. f-Eret view jif it, and contendedl that the p ass-book, upon the face, coLtilned evidencestlenotost positive ofa fabricated acouint,andtibte d2ebt was 4oPppsediipon the charge ofiLusury. The factstwith respect to the state in hichie this book was now prodatcedl were these e:- rhe -5itm aer s he admitted, had seldomn looked into it, and was vrey *.r for,1 suspecting any, thing Improiper in the arrangement of it, antil t'-de timeoftite bankruptcy of Howarti aitd Gibbs. There were leatril s of different kindis in the book, and it contained armonig other thirt--s the namnes of persns who were represented to Mr. Grimstead a:s the persns to whom the first maoiety of hiis 60.0001. had been ad. v anced, and upon whom he was led to believe thiat lie had a claim 'sr hse supponed aninuities. The fir.st of the bills which hie bath accep ted for the accommodation of Howard and Gibbis, was for Z.(=33!, and was signed 20th of November, 1820. .The entry, whtich .ihriwed the receipt of this as well as of the other bills, to this amrount cf`25AOdL, was in thes;e terms--,' I ack-nowledge to have received ,cf-Mlr. Win. Grirnstead, a bill for 5,0001., for which he has rc'- 'ceived on accmmodation, and which I am to replace before it shall beecome dae; signed James Gibbs," On the 21 st of Januiary, follow- inag, he was arrested bys a Mlr. Bury, for a bill of 7,0001., which he zccmuaodated by j~aying 2,0001., and g-ave two bills each for 2,5001. Orn the 21st of I-ebruary, he hieard of the petition of bank- roPtrY againSt oward and Gibbs for else first time. He wait- ezl upon Alr. NlVhitton, a solicitor of eminence, who advised himn to quit England, and undertook so look after his ainnuities in his absence. He arrired at Calais on the 8tlh of Alarch, whiere dlr. 1"hitton was to have come to him with the intelligence of his ait. nuailie4tttr5T'his had been construed into a fraud, and collusion had bee tsrved front his departure, by which it was pretended thiat lie was tl2Yut to defraudI the creditors-, though it was occasioned siiiiply by o=r of arrest. diMr. Wlhitton did inquire into the state of lilt an- utiaer byc ring to the inforinatiomil furnished to thle pe!i. Hic owvard and Gibbs. The grantorN of the annuities were pZrsos of s;ome figure aind consequence. Air. Grev Bennet was down for an annuity uapis s loan of 10,0001. ; Mr. B. Paget a nd there were other annuities said to be due from persons cf equal resplecta-bility. There certainly were all real characters, man-I freqiuently s,een within diie neighbourhood of London in actual ICarPreal formn. Theirconnexion xvith poer Mlr. Grimnstead's annuity. list,, homeever, wLs wholly nieLaphvsicatl. They wereso little conscious ,cf it, that ther' expressed great a-stoiiishuient andl even rsnmenti at tile im putatio~n of such a thinag.Now, it did appear front the book, 1as itt ,qas found last of all, that certain erasures had been miade, and al. Utertins effected in the pass.book, fromi which a more suspecting Th'an mould hiave guessed dint Fomethiing improper-had been done: far, intent u o utgn ann, soudin naes_om f hm e lonigt erson of titlse, hith appearetd'g that they had bret sfthuc --t, and`mallPar%rysof witere entapeared i thet plaes,ia of 101.,uc o0,itSl, -odsat aipaaccordancewwithntheestyle of the parties which1weredwrit. Ctati down beordapnc wainsofthe seyhadfthepastignes fhixhedra wrthe grund Wofrte. chageofnsr;eas some of teeadhehasgeentfixed s whic eemande asf the pirgod uuceoryou lcan," ermo henoriaccompaiedi wish many nsea.th Butdwhy wasthis toa, bve?romnoth beginpning twithe end ofithe Book thes etries toere al ofroine charcer Tbesenin paronseproftessed ,tolbeenntriit-brvereatonepetiratioer. wa eseito pardson thoemsfor th e pnuiposerof lain oTh heistmoney in. annuties. Re hd doithem fo.rooydsu the fac,; Iig its this mone. Well anutien tBe hsn doibe boun Nby thispcontent an languagei ofar the boohin on th7enasz in banmuerd by th'e cotenil as ndagaeo the beinigThwordi po-e c-e oa" i apnotiedrtalon must menain that therennwas ane nuwyrd uto the-c eappliedtnon th loahers sideo rtiat thare vanes glsary antotinter.Bu r-ret this pass-hook accordinig to the v*w w-hicli they taok, anti wislh- ed otIlers to takce, of it. They must, liowvever, go farther ttitan this. A bargain for aninuities had beeni commnenced ; they must show ex- racasl-y at what period of th-se transactions they ceased to bear the cLammcer of annuiities, andI whien the contract' upon macere interest cammnced befre te cae cotid ~ gt withiin thte forfeitureR untler the tatue ofQuen Ane. Bt th Prtence was too absuird for any Th~ oan HANCT.LOl, i looinig ovimr the notes fChe Justce Dllas coud no fin bow theuury hqd been- brougtfr wadby cit joiel, nT ierow-the JucdSe, 1his2eL4 aied ic-S chage o Te Jry.The. view, of tle Cae,. a3- it sttsscl him, WMa ths.-.to rov ceurythere.muset be sh6iWni aloan of monleytiiupon- UsurOus Ontact.if'this wvere a real statemnent of Mfr. Grirmltead's, and hathe etullydid furnish mToney to Howard. andGbbt buy sinieisfiq1l, tey ~letedto pur~chase them. Suppos-. in~ hey ba no Becme ankupt, lr. Grimastead would have hadnotingto o wththequetio ot money.~he woutld have hadt to rin hiacton o rcovr te vlueofthe annuities wbicif oughctto have benpurchased, and for brechof the trust whilch he reposed in those agents. .If fHowiard and Gibbs became bankrupts, then he .would have- hadla claiom on tthe estate for the m-oney advanced for 'annuitiesi, thiough they were not effected and therefore -it was necessarr for thle 6thdr '~sarty to sh'OW aL whiat time the sumsadiancsl o prchse nnutie, wich were not effected, were convrte int ssc-.sn fr mney t uiraus interest. Mr.iiocsr hoed hat - ll hiswa4-t be' understoodl to be witoutprjudce o is lietsinsil he.were heard. Ile wished to ito frm theSolcitr.enea f e, meant ta move for a diew TheSos8 vo.Gllr~ id,'hit lie meant to miove -ipon the whole matter of the petition. .- The Loren CseAXCEcL0i. said, that thie.S;licitbr could not be PreVented from asking the Court any thing undesi this motion ; is ttas forthe Courit to grant or refutse any part of' what he asked. Thie' shiort-handi writer's notes of the trial at Nisi Priers were hianded urp to his Lordship, wvitli the consent of bothi parties. The 56OLICITO1.1GENEa-AL proceeded. He wouild prcoduce, a letter dated' October 91, 1819, written by' Mlr. Gibbi to Mr. Grim4 stead, whbichi would, show chat 'from thje beginning to thie close of the bargains, represented in the piass-bdolk, hi mnust have looked uipon th.:m as agents for annnisides, and that- the parties never hadi viewied each other in diie lighit of borrower and lender merely. '" I have now maode uip your book., and shall have great' pleasure in seilding it to you. 'I h.ave' entered all the interest up to the 9th iisat., ati have brouight in all youir an-, iluiti~e;g`. That expression asserted anid proved the fact---it was ek. ternal confirmattion of the interna,l contents. It was saidlbyvthe other side, that dir. Vhitton muast have given thee petitoner information of the erro;rs and erasures in thte pass book,an the patitiodier dte- claredl that hehladnosanykilowledgeof the errors 'and erAsu'res. It was saidI ttien that no man cdLild have beeis s.o!;smple as to be 'with- ouit rhat knowledge,' whent go m-any circumstances were found in comnbination toftorce conviction upon his mind. They asked, was it to be b'elieved that any man couild hiave that pass-book going thy;q-;gh his hands, ,withalltsitealteraitions in it, and not suspect thi'%rjiesitua. tiorn of his Property was altered ? He believed it Z.,sible-hek knew it to he trite. There waMS the plainest evide"1~"Nt thiat couldl be found in the duperl already liractised u- n 1Mi. in the 'ascendancy whichi they obtained overh I i li re and sulinous stratagems wvitii which dieycintlsmperduR with whiich he ~ os vyhspopryinteiplcedit he ad f l r t fe avn-o only piut all'~ the meat's whichl llg..-'0 tOttitituted Gibbs his executor amnse n di4pose_of .,%sefibets on his departure Into thL et oca.hr was fact against prot4statiort-b.ere was the positive evidence against theeavow- ed impossibilitcy of the weakness ascribed to titis unforetid'se- colusir~ irentlemtna. He 'was blind to al1 the entries, andl eras ires, and Altera. tions, because liigifoidiiess for'those 'mert led himh to, suippose 'that Ithey. would keep his m-osieyfitsii a-foot in the syal' oZ qqttutUes, -whatevler mig-ht -lye' lht T6siiii li tlhe b Pik. =l n y oever, hte learns that he is not only answerable for 2i,0001. of Iacceptances, which Ilie had signedI for them, 'but' elto chat' his Clain, for a balanice of 32,0001. Wvas taintedl wishi ustssy. Rte makes a jouirney -to Calais, to shiun thec arrest for these adeommodation bilLs. A wentleman' of' the uhSsue of Porter 'is' selitc to b'um there by Gibbs; to entreat hiim to comie ovef and yotte for. assignees -his beinig (teemied a very, coinsiderable vote. Tihe C-onrt would particularly ntice dinat circutmstance. There' wvere four letters wrtten b~yNPetter in thte course 'of his jiourney, which wvere&pro. eled at the trial at A1ei Priu,v. The adimission of thenm in evi. tlence would be one of ithe grounds uponi.whicti he wouild move, for Ia niew tria'l. The petitioner raid thiat it was iu) the miidst of the em. barrassineats which are before describedi, thtat Porter Came to him, re'PTesen tinK thlathIe attendetd rion Gibbs-thatilhere was a great cost. teiinfrteappointment of assignees-shat the affairs or thie an. ititities had been greatly- overstated biy Mir. WVhitton, who was a-ent to Lord Strathmiorc, anld that. his annuities would certainly be 1paid. Titecontest undertlite cosutiiissionrwasflirtb)etweentworival setsofas.i ssgtt";ees;one pa,rty comyposed ofShiaw,Dusfl, and anotlher; the other of Camnpclil,lVillke, andI Davis. 51r. Canmpbell suIccmeede in obtaining the appointaient,'wlich was still stoutly opposed, and liis debt, uponl examination, proved to be so hollow, thtan the Lord Chancellor thlen declared, tha if teii verdict% utpon ten issues declared it to be a goodi debt, he wouild not believe it. Such was the opinioti of the ACourt. uipon dir. Catispbell's rig-ht and Gibb% felt it to be very mnaterial to shlut out Alir. Canipbehi. Gibbs anti Porter iisiglit have been very, earnest, and gonf- to almost indtiscreet lengths in effectit,t that ob- ject ; hut in this strug-gle all the zeal andt labotur, the letters and messges sed o binig Mir. Grimistead over, mtuss be taken to imiply, tha h's ws agoo vote, tliough Campbell's was a hollow one, It was mpoaihil tobblieve that in this instance they were dealing togthe t farictea debt. Ile wished that Isis Lordship would tak rotse ro te mintutes 'in the bankruptcy, whsat sort of a vote dir. Camupbell turnedl 'out to be. (dir. Allonta,uo liere readl a considierable part of cthe examination of Mlr. anaiphell tinder thie comtmission, from wvhich it appeared that at ithe timne he wasp rovinig a eebt of 20,11001. or thsereabouts, lie was irnha- hiting a smnall house at 261. rent,.that he kept a lodger, that lie dealt in hay, that he was a surveyor, that lie hadl sold 3,111111. of goods for the BoardI of'Work%, chat he litdI given hills withiin three miouths for 5il anns 71.'which were covered by other bills wheni the~ybecrane due fod similp,r amiouints. Itwasitu iipossibi,e, therefore, that she missioni to Paris, effected with so imtch zeal bjr Porter aind Gibb~, could have been tor the' pur-pose of fabricatingX a debt, its ortier to Carry die -as. signeeship against Campbell.. And yet, strange to say, that was the only, interpretation whichl wasphut upon the four letters of' Porter in cthe Common Pleas. How they fouind their wvay inito ithe evidence~, no otie can properly account. The correspiondence couldi isot be legally made evidencee of an intenit to fabricate andl contrive a dbtb,while Por. ter himself iiiight have been exaniinesl in. CourLt.I was not legal to sub- stituteit%Iletters ;for Itisperson. The lettershlid been itsedini obtalining Ithe appointment of assignees for dlir. Shiaw. He ditd not' knowv bv what logic it was afterwareis siiown that they were evidenice th~t GrimsteaEl's was not a- real debt.- Thte first letter was dlated f'romn Reei'ir Al arch 2)Il, 121, and' waii addressedl to Gibbs. Thii~ was follow,ed by others fromi Dover anid Cablai, in whichl Porter cle- scribed the course and success ofhis journey; all of thensi conutining Cautions anid directions to have the appointriteiti of assignees put off till Air. Gritasrtead sholdni( be brouight to town. Thiest letters did not relate to any fraud between ithe parties; they did not, in sthe inost distant way, suggest any thing lilke fraud, or sthe fabrication of a debt. Thiey ref'erredI sohely'to site object of' securing else aPpoitntment at assignees, and d tefeating the fraud of" Campbell. Th e petitioner, howvever, comnplained, thiat upons these letters, tite impsort of which bad never been truly described, lie liadl been op- posed first by dir. Shaw, sthe assignee unider tlhe new comTmission, that he had been most unjustly acctused of wilful anid corrupt perjury, antd of entering into a conspiracy wvith Gibbs to defrauid the creditors and that tinder these assumptions lie had beets not onily stigmtatize by the VTice.Chiancellor'sdecision, but also by cthe verdlict at Nisi Prina. .l,et thieca-sebe t-ken qsuacasupte viA,eilsier-givedi)r.(Jritii- s;teaid hismnoney or his annuities. But thiedebtiwas pu in issue un- dler ithe most grievous condemnation, aisd sipon groutids totally, apart from the first charge. Tuie openier of the pleadings itn the Cormmon Pleas told the jury, that it was almost nugatory to tryvcthe fact of wlietiler it was diie or nor. ThIe deb, l atd been expungedt under tite colunslissiun ott accounit of usurious interest, Mr. Shaw. didI not at fist scenit o tlsink it suibject so that objectioti. Tiie fact wvas plaVted before the lutry in the muist imiproper and suspiciotis mnanner; the evitlence 6Yesed as equally objectionable. Tise merits% of the petition hiad never yet been lieard. TIhe petitioni was presentea in tie first place to the 'Vice-Uhaiicelbor to kave cte' debt re. storrel. Air. Hart statied the contents of cite bill, dir. Bell, dir.Head, ad dr. lontgut wee to have followed hinti. Vhe etiiottr nsy sate ver t tly,tat evety suitor has a rigt t behead, thr b hisel orby iscounsel. The pi-.. tison as pend o sh 22'ofDecmbe, 121,byv r AiHart I bu't scarelyhaddir Bel dne wAt he ustingofiis papers, whlen I ste iceChacehoe delard tat uter argument swa~ unnieces- I sry, as the question must be tried at lawr. He was convinced, that Ihat Isis Lordship heatrd the Petition, there wvould lhave beeit, no ai- Irection for a trial 'at law, eNpecially conisidering this as A case under the bankrupt laws, its which the questioni of righit was likely, fromn cabal or prejudice, so miscairry, in the idecision.. For he wvas there reasdy to contend, thsat'ifa caseoccurred before tliejudge of aii eqluity, 'court in wihte iparties were greatly agitated by passion sabi pre- juili,e, ota itn al probability shere wouldi be confulsiots ef- I etd both a so itote law atidisthe fact, it would be sthe duty Iof itle Judtge anotso send an issue. If the right and th;e fact were likely so be placed in wrong, lights before the jury, in con- sequence of thie zeal of the par-ties, it would be! the duty of the Juidge not to send an issuxe, and as all ev.'nts ito issue shoutd be seiit ntiltie Jtsd ge hadl heard the whole of the evidence. is was sur- prising how this one solitary view of the tendlency of these featrletters was to be taken up and carried on from the beginning so the end of the proceedings. 'There wvas no trial: the question was sent so the jury predertinated so defeat. Tbefabrication of she debt andth deceit were so-strongly hiferred by the Judlge who sttic the question to trial. rhst thier was one expression of' his fintimating that it was not a question 'which ought to come before a civil tribunal to be heard for" a ease of more uindaunwls perjuiry," tdiat learned Juidge de- clared that Ife did ncot rememnber to have hieardi. For his owss part, he could not go erie step wishi chat learned Jtudge iii she eSuvicctiots of undaun-ted perjuiry. Thiat niiglit betclie ipression sp6nin tre ind of that learned person ; andl if so, he must say that lie tould have no uinder-standing upon the maost emilmon. poinstr of facts, in coin- mon with that ver~y respectable Juidge. Take the question assy way; Giv-e Air. Grimstead itis annuities~-No, lie did not-buy aty': then give him his money.-No, lie lent it on usurious contr-act . Very goodl-that was a quiestion of lawv fit for a j'ury to try, buts no proof of fiction -it did iotocshiow fabricatioti or perjussy. The action at law wouhldlhave set that point at rest. But it was elsaniged into a particular isqsue, directed by the Vrice-Cbancelior, lso try %#hether Howard and Gibbs whiere at'all indebted sto- dlir. O6rinstead in the amounmt in question, and thiey were directedl tint to plead tise bank- ruptcy as a set off. After sonie dotibt, Gibbs was to be adImitted Ais a vwitness. He hadl been exaistbsi'edauntler the comimission, and ad' mitted that they had taken M1r. Grimstesud's mioney in sthe chia- raCter o1' annuit .ag~enes. Under this forni, thfe issue went to trial. tlie,Sol~icitO.ee. yh vssdyhli rmn on earth how to qualifv -the de.n--er-its' otf i 1lJnn case, did not fifil to infqsji tLe jury of tbse character which had been fixed tpon the dlaim by one iudge adreadt. Tneir objec. tions to the trial w ere,-first, the inadmissibilitv oftle four letters iLs evidence, anl-then the perversions which fromi first to last ha bac. coniLanied Mr. Grimstcad's case. A trial ! It was a mockerv, andt no tnal. There was a cause called on, persons to speak and others to hear wvitnesses were examinied, and a verdict was taken. But in the usualsense, trial had not been hiad,-nofling to satisfy the conscience of the Court upon doubtfulpointsof right. le meant'nodispa- rageent to trie labours ofi that exalted Judge ChiefJustice DaUas, Iwhose infirmities had premnaturely deprived the country of his ser- vices. In intellect and lionour-in all tiat was coi prehended of the necessary endowmenits of ani accomplished Judge--he ,vwas withoutany superior: but even his excellent understand. Iag seensedi to have been aftected by the current of perver- sion? antI his judicial complexion took the jaundiced colour of tne objects vhich every where surrounded him. His direc- tions tohe jury received a taint to' say the least of it. Aiid then the evidence upon wshich lie had to animadvert was any thisg but that svliich might have becns desired for tite intereits ofJustice. The confidence which this unhappy geitlemnan had placed in the firm eas lo.it sight of, and the inspection1 examination, arid knowledge of the book, was fixed upor hins by a course of circuitoust reasoning, miuch according to tihe fitiion and doectrine.of construca tive notice, bjy w hich von prove that a man having receiv-d a lettet, that letter sointshim lo a will, which again points h;nm to sorac otterinsttent, ithe knowledge of which is to be fastened uipon 'im,. In the moral, legal, ainet eftetive sense, tbee bail been-' no -trfel.afthlqeesiion.vet.4d -t r eitsa metir ?e%RO sta,&--for the first time anxl he sad so he iust be allowed 'to rejoW mrich as the delay and-practice of thi Court-lha: bsin CplLpLinctl of,' that . there 'Ivsa one place in England at- least, where judges had perseverance enough to :eee justice realydone. -It wast inot .every where that they coud find- patience enough on. the justice-seat to _go,.through the leg-t and equitable imerits of a: long. and complieated suit,l re claimed .no l or tr. rim- stead; either a new trial, or that-the verdict should'be entirely passeti by, and that the Court would proceed to decide the yetion on-.ie;' ,ns the same as if-this were the 1irst time the subject had 'been brouight before itc. Upon.the -r o m s c e'no' question.. The Courtrlai'frequendl icee f~ i6i?i to a third; aud if neow difficulties ccur, i was quite withinthe.line of precedent to aslfor legal-opinionsfter that -And.aft..t loior thlrr,eeor 'even 'four'certificates, the Cor.tihapoe.iftta? reason, to passbiyall'that liad been loae, aadatwitbad eoerjitsa it- would vhth an origtial and entfLelyne.rletitiol. Thelossoffor- tune which had, been followed by loss of, arac drut'on the part- of Mlr. Gimtead, were nowrenderedgrsevous4nd .mtohi'abTh, through an errdr and misprision- of justice; for which in this Court only he couldnow be furnished witi an adequate rernedv.- Mr. HART followed on the sune side, anntended:,h3tinetstnly did theevidenceatAi,siP,r-tslead moit4directlv to aivrbngroaeclasi6n' and-one entirely iipait front the serits tofte~ciin hr-a notbling to sead to an issuf., 'Ihe caui rie bbt thie treatment of' 'the, evidenrce, throughout wij6A.f contrao tlid xile anid practice of evidenice in all cases whei'ein theg same usestiona were involVed. He would uot go over thosepbints which ei-atl bee 'so ablve dwelt on by the Solictor-General, snd 'his addressi4hould atleast have, as one claim for a patiebt-hearing, toei nerit oful nOt c prsing any tedious repetitions. The part, to which he -would firshidress himnselfwas the obloquy and discredit thrown on. Mit'rnibbs's teasti' mony. rt was oily to be expeited of the. counset'eqpsd to1 hi that they would-make wase of all thea!tvan.tajs.iwbtchI his eha- racter and past. transactions made available to, thei'eduie of their clienits- hut suirely thete Wdg something to eoinphuiti- of-whe&il the Judie toolk' p their'suggestions, and, iti sonMeg tlkree a(lealt, aHowedI the jury, t, qualify their belief on hifestetruony uppn. that accoutnt. *Yhere . . usual- doctrinelahich, even ie criminal cases, r4iqires faith in the .ibne o u in the guilt of the cliargei ifh Wer bon'ot l7 zhr.~tis and rircumstances ? What end.could Mr. Gibbs have in-sweai'i . one-ay or the otlher? He- had surrendered upe\ibVLirgYtotfie I aisign6cs. He bad been convicted-of no perj h I edin lis exainination dinder tie commission that he. had ncted 'ns annuity.agent-to Mr.-Grimstead.- His -evidence-orte trial-wai- in. accordaiice withi.his examination. J{l had n say any thing but the truth, and comniron lhuirlinsity u'gted him, under sucli circumstances, to do Mr. -Grimstead tbat much Tight. I He adtmitfed tbat-he.had been the;cause.of that.genrtlcenasrmin.'ruy fraud and artifice. Was there to be no 10cit,Spenit.,tzeraloweAusthe' mind even oF a profligate-bankiupt 7-"And then, - ron - Th -'of the case,- he had a very goad riglit to call in qu dti' 'ethblf4oebof the learned JIudge. ' . "' ' -* The LounDCUAIcELtOrtaskel,if thesieam&-l -Jutd lfadnede any obaervStions on' the piedse tiqate ip wljichl'the'kowihicb ua f dmitted to hive been in the first instance foi anQ.4tee. tw'-.convert- ed into'a contract usuriou,- as was rdqufifid.(r the 3tagtui of Queen Mr. HART said, that he-vas conting to that part. f the case di rectly. The learned Jpdgefixin-g upon a patfictdltr point of tittle, . toldl the jeary, fitht up tb' thtat '&ir iere could, te'no do6hbt tfigt the ucatings be lieen the parties were all conscientious anit just. But he afm.gs betWeen f heas bound by that admissioni to have fpedif4ally pointed oltt the thim when the tranractions first becaine aitpted, with Usuey.i; for without tiat direct.pr6of, as they. coiineii&lMai` ilintetrity -and. jus.' tiee, they must be considerl as.posses,iing tile same cb,iracter to theliust, , '.' .1 . ' ~, ~ - ' The LoRD Cn,AWC'str.TLOR saida that the proof of diat change oi conversiou iu- 'the contract -wistindispefisiblF ne' essry, according o every constructioti oft itdet'tteseof 11suty smce ths stu4eofQueen Anne. Ile wished partiitt|A'rly to kntpw,.thdrefore, if the loan -was described to the jury as a loan ai iniino tainted byehe :irtury-v fthe contract. It' not, then i vrothl 'nily have beesa frautlulent useoi- moneyoon the part of HoL*rdrand Gibbs, and M2r. Grimstead must have recovere of. thenm, s-opposing they -liie'dnot byeome banknrpts4 the loaa wa-hi lie sustained by th~ir..uot-ayilig outlhie bIoiiekisi`he- directed. It-waa; theretore,.ver.y natterial to lcProwat-what -titne the contract for annuities ivas converted intoa nmere-lo-n 'I- lhe statute required that the proof should le s'pciffc,- and thereforeihe-was'- par- ticular in inquiring what the Chief Justice had laid before the jiyrv upon that h'ed.: He also wlshedi:t6 kiiow if tie -esidince 'of uis`ry affected the whole of the balanee of-32.0(101.; acd if not- the -whole, how nnuch of it was affected.. . He co'uld not, hlifev&rf slay longer to-day, 'but lie untlertook to hciar iiothiink else till thiishould be ar-. guedto at conclusion. ' - ' SOLICITORS DrF TnI5it COURT. The foregoing argument wvas interrupted by an 'application on the part ofil1r.AGA ,who had beerr neqtteste(e immmediatfttodconsult the Lord Chancellor-upon-the follo;vjng question' :_ petitioi h-atd been presented to strike two solicitorc of4aie Tolls of the Court, and his onour wshed to know ifit was ithin the scope-of his branch'of tlme jurisdiction to grant the petition' before~ -he'>would venture to hear it. T*e LonnRDISAXCELT.oR said, *that-lis -Ilono1ir mnlst have for- gotten that lie had already ixcrcised'hjs power by striking one soli. citor off the rolls, for .which there was :a petition.'nowi pending bC- fore him. jllr. A GAl said, that undoubtedlybislionour was aware of tat. but tine-present petltiqn.prayed,on the ailernative,that no commission in fattre should be directedl to the said soliciors from this honoura. ble Court, ' 'Thoe L0RiD CHAN CELLOR 'gaiad,' undoubtedi" lbi could not.see how the order of his Hfonour, hot to suffer a- n'licitor to rece.ve a, rcomn;ission fromii this honourable Court, could'-be able to prevent' the Lord Chancellor from dirccting a. ommigSsion to tdit very soli- citbr; ifthe case should so all dot. L.ird.Thurlbw haadudirected that no other counmission should be put into the tiands of-certain solici. tors'respectmng whom, lie made that order. LTpon die whole, in aques- tion wlticl wwent so m.aterially to affect the.entirernmeans.of life of tie parties, he thought he ought not to part with,4the-exercIse of that power, and thai he shoul1 take the:whole Moposibjlity On hitnsel'. COURT OF CHANCnRY. Timrqnv. A% an CLAUGTTOI V. IIARlRlnX