APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



309 



bly have had good pretensions for 

 this resistance. It was fortunate, 

 however, that lord Wellington, had 

 relieved the people of Madrid from 

 all disqualifications of this nature, 

 however they might have before 

 existed. 



Hoffley V. Collier. — This was an 

 action, on the Statute of Usury, 

 for penalties to the amount of 

 13,000/. It appeared that the de- 

 fendant was a general agent, re- 

 siding at Plymouth, and had dis- 

 counted, at two different times, 

 bills to the amount of about -ijOOO/. 

 for Boyson and Co. timber- mer- 

 chants, residing in London ; on 

 which he had charged about 20/. 

 over and above 5 per cent. Mr. 

 Topping, for defendant, contend- 

 ed, that this charge being for com- 

 mission, and expenses incurred, 

 was lawful ; and stated, that there 

 were several decisions, proving that 

 country bankers might make such 

 charges. The jury, on Mr. Top- 

 ping proceeding to call witnesses, 

 stated, that he need not, as their 

 minds were made up ; but his lord- 

 ship desired the proof to be pro- 

 ceeded in, which went to establish 

 that it was the general custom to 

 charge one-half per cent on such 

 transactions. In this case, one- 

 quarter per cent was charged on 

 the first, and one half per cent on 

 the latter discount. The Solicitor- 

 General made a most able and elo- 

 quent speech in reply ; when his 

 lordship, in his charge to the jurj', 

 iaid, — " Gentlemen of the Jury ; 

 This is an action on the statute of 

 Usury, a statute enacted a consi- 

 derable time anterior to the times 

 In which we live, which subjects 

 parties who receive any profit upon 

 Joans of money, more than at the 

 rate of 51. per cent, to very severe 



j)eDaltie8, three times the amount 

 of the sum lent. On the policy of 

 this statute it becomes not me to 

 speak : as long as it remains on 

 the Statute-roll, obedience to it is 

 my dut)', as it is your's. To the 

 principle of that statute, I have no 

 particular favour, nor any particu- 

 lar disfavour. Many people think 

 that it would be of no injury to 

 the public, if money should re-, 

 ceive its market price, as well as 

 other commodities ; but the law 

 says otherwise ; and it is mine, 

 and, I must say, your duty, to 

 enforce that statute, as long as 

 it remains on the Statute-book. 

 But though people may not legally 

 take more than 5 per cent as inte- 

 rest, yet persons dealing in bills 

 have been allowed to take an in- 

 demnity for charges absolutely in- 

 curred, as in the case cited, when 

 5 per cent was allowed as a fair 

 inderanitj' to a banker. But no 

 collateral advantage under the pre- 

 tence of agency, no profit can le- 

 gally be taken. In law nothing 

 ever was or can be allowed above 

 an indemnity for charges. (His 

 lordship then stated the excess 

 taken above legal interest under 

 the name of commission, stamps, 

 and postages.) Here there is an 

 excess ; if taken as a profit, the 

 party is liable to the penalty ; but 

 it is a question for you, gentlemen, 

 whether any practice exists autho- 

 rising such a charge as an indem- 

 nity. Let us consider the situation 

 of the party, — he was not a banker, 

 — kept no house or clerks for that 

 purpose ; therefore it appears to 

 me, there is nothing in this case to 

 justify the extra charges. If we 

 are to hold it lawful, that there 

 shall be no limitation to the 

 charge a man may make as com- 



