366 
they are in the spirit of feudal legisla- 
tion: they legalize villainy, when they 
are obeyed : ee secure a preference to 
the sharper and swindler, over the trades. 
man and the regular creditor, when they 
are disobeyed. ‘Chey encourage gaming 
by taking out its sting: aman plays 
more boldly, because he knows he can 
take refuge in dishonour: but when he 
thas lost, he chooses to quit the asylum, 
which during his frenzy he looked to as 
a refuge. The good sense of Lord 
Mansfield saw that these privileged 
frauds should be restricted within the 
narrowest possible bounds. He made 
the first inroad on the exceptionable act, 
which our author has recited: we shall 
transcribe the narration. 
«¢ Notwithstanding the plainness and pre- 
cision with which the act was drawn, nu- 
merous cases have been argued and adjudged 
in the different courts respecting the extent 
of its provisions. The devices and subtle- 
ties that were invented to evade its obvious 
meaning, soon rendered appieacons to courts 
of justice necessary: and the first case of 
Importance came on to be heard in the eourt 
of King’s Bench before Lord Manstield, in 
the seventh year of his present Majesty, 
which is hereatter stated. 
«« But as the act itself forms the grand ba- 
sis upon which most of the cases have been 
decided, perhaps it will be the least perplex- 
ing method of arrangement to take them in 
chronological order, so far as the subject 
matter will admit of it: remarking, as we 
proceed, on the rules and principles arising 
out of them ; and adverting to other cases 
relating to stock-jobbing transactions prior 
to the passing of the act, when they serve to 
elucidate any point of law. One decided 
advantage of this mode will be, that of car- 
rying the reader along, step by step, in the 
history of stock-jobbing, from what may be 
called its legal birth, to its present state of 
maturity. 
«* Tt would appear that the act had the ef- 
fect of curbing the then prevailing disposition 
for jobbing, as no case of importance seems 
to have been decided on it till the period 
above alluded to, when that of Faikney 
against Raynous and Richardson was Sant 
in which the court decided, * That money 
borrowed to pay a stock-jobbing contract, 
though of the partner in the transaction, was 
not within the statute.’ 
«¢ Thecase reported in the Ist of Blackstone, 
638, is as follows :—To an action of debt on 
bond, dated the 23d February, 1765, for 
$,0001., the defendant prayed oyer of the bond 
and condition, which was to secure 1,5001.— 
and pleaded. first, Non est faclum, m1 which 
issue was joined: and, second, That since 
the statute, the plaintiff corruptly entered. 
into several agreements for transferring sun- 
HISTORY, POLITICS, AND STATISTICS. 
dry parcels of stock, on the jointaccount of — 
himself and defendant Richardson, to be de- 
livered at a certain time, called the Rescoun- 
ter Day, in February following; and, in 
performance thereof, corruptly, and contrary 
to the form of the statute, paid $,0v0l. to 
divers persons, for making up the difference 
in price, for not performing the said con- 
tracts, and that the bond was made for se- 
curing to the plaintiff 1,5001., being Richard- 
son’s moiety of the said differences ; and for 
no other consideration, and therefore yoid in 
law. 
‘¢ The plaintiff demurred ; and defendant 
joined in demurrer. 
«* Lorp Mansrretp.—‘ I am clear that 
this is no defence, even allowing it to be well 
pleaded. Compounding differences for stock 
sold, is not malum in se, but merely prohibi- 
tum. Where a thing is prohibited by Act 
of Parliament, it is void as between the par- 
ties, and no court of justice will allow a man 
to recover for what is made unlawful to be 
done. But this case is not within the Act of 
Parliament. 
“© The bond is for money lent to another 
to fulfil a prohibited contract. Ifa man 
lends money to be lent upon usury, or to 
pay a gaming debt, can it not be recovered ? 
—There is no difference whether borrowed 
of Faikney, or of any other person.’ 
«* Judgment for the plaintiff, in which 
Yates, Aston, and Hewit, concurred.” 
We sincerely wish this pamphlet may 
be a mean of drawing the legislature 
to the immorality of the act of parlia- 
ment, and that all bargains made at the 
stock-exchange may be rendered as le« 
gal, as valid, as open to recovery in the 
courts of justice and by the process of 
law, as the bargains of merchants on 
their Exchange. Principle is the victim, 
and fraud the gainer by a system, which 
has lately protected the dishonesties of 
opulence, and punished the honourable 
fidelity of mediocrity. 
We shall state this author’s highly 
proper and respectable counsel concern- 
ing a recent transaction. 
«‘ But a subject of considerable impor- 
tance, and which has of late claimed much 
attention, continues still undetermined by 
any express decisions:—this is the validity 
of a bargain made at a time when false and 
groundless reports, raised and propagated for 
fraudulent purposes, materially affecting the 
price of stocks, are generally credited. Under 
such circumstances,’some persons contend 
that a bargain made for the purchase of sale 
of stock, which has not been actually trans- 
ferred, becomes ipso facto void; and that no 
legal claim can be maintained for any 
damage which the buyer, or seller may theré- 
by sustain. The same persons will admit, 
