APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



303 



themselves. The question was, 

 whether the plaintiffs had a right 

 to prove, under the defendants' 

 commission, a demand of 314,581/. 

 35. for advances to the Scotch 

 house of Messrs. Scott, Smith, 

 Stein, and Co., and 55,448/. 1-55. 

 4d. to the London house of the 

 defendants. It appeared that in 

 January, 1803, tlie defendants 

 opened an account with Messrs. 

 Kensingtons, for their house in 

 town ; and on the 3rd or 4th of 

 August afterwards, for the Scotch 

 house, through the agency of Mr. 

 Thomas Smith, and that it was 

 agreed that no advance of money 

 was to be required from the bank- 

 ers, and that they were to have 

 20,000/. running at a time in bills; 

 for the trouble of negociating 

 which, the bankers were to have 

 a commission of one-half per cent. 

 The agreement, however, was im- 

 mediately departed from in prac- 

 tice, and the bankers were soon 

 and perpetually in large advances 

 to both the Scotch and the London 

 houses, insomuch that the com- 

 mission upon their advances ave- 

 raged 16/. 8*. 8d. per diem. The 

 partners of Messrs Kensingtons' 

 house were all examined at great 

 length, as well as the defendants, 

 and they contradicted each other 

 as to the circumstance of the 

 former house knowing that Mr. 

 Scott, of the Scotch house, died 

 in 1797. It appeared that Messrs. 

 Kensingtons never knew Mr. Scott, 

 and dealt with the Scotch house 

 only through Mr. Thomas Smith. 

 They admitted, however, that 

 they heard of Mr. Scott's death in 

 1806, but always afterwards con- 

 sidered that his family derived 

 •ome benefit from the trade of the 

 Scotch tirm. On the 24th of 



June, 1806, the bankers entered 

 into an agreement with Thomas 

 Smith, reciting that the defendants 

 kept an account (which was al- 

 tered by Mr. Edward Kensington 

 to " accounts") with the bankers, 

 and that they had applied, and 

 might have occasion again to apply, 

 to the bankers, for discount and 

 advances, and therefore Mr. Tho- 

 mas Smith agreed to deposit with 

 the bankers the lease of the de- 

 fendant's premises in Fenchurch- 

 street, and a certain policy of as- 

 surance for 8,000/. as a general 

 security for the repayment of all 

 advances, past and future, by the 

 bankers to the defendants, or 

 (altered to and) Messrs. Scott, 

 Smith, Stein, and Co., or either 

 of them. The defendants also de- 

 posited with the bankers secu- 

 rities in bills of exchange, and of 

 lading of spirits, &c. the Messrs. 

 Steins being engaged also as dis- 

 tillers in Scotland. These secu- 

 rities were changed from time to 

 time by the defendants. The de- 

 fendants' assignees now contended, 

 that the whole of the advances in 

 question were made under an usu- 

 rious agreement for one-half per 

 cent, under the name of com- 

 mission ; and that, therefore, the 

 plaintiffs had no legal right to re- 

 cover : and Lord EUenborough left 

 it to the Jury, whether the bank- 

 ers had not, under an unfortunate 

 lure of a large commission, been 

 thus tempted to take more than 

 5/. per cent, for their advances. 

 If so, the law was irresistible that 

 this was usury. The knowledge 

 of the circumstances was brought 

 home to some of the partners, and 

 the law was, that the knowledge 

 of one partner was the knowledge 

 of all. If Mr. J. P. Kensington 



