304 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1814. 



had interfered further than he did 

 in the miinagement of the bank, 

 it appeared that tlie house would 

 not have fallen into its misfortune. 

 If the hankers had abided by their 

 agreement of never beinj^ in ad- 

 Viuice, there would have been no 

 usury, which must be takint,^ more 

 than 5/. per cent, for the loan or 

 forbearance of money : but if the 

 commission was connected with 

 the fact of being in advance, and 

 operated as an inducement thereto, 

 then it was unquestionably usuri- 

 ous. It had been rightly held, 

 th:it when bankers were put to 

 trouble and inconvenience colla- 

 teral to the advance of money, 

 such as was occasioned by sending 

 specie up to London, entailing an 

 expense in the disposal of it, and 

 by keeping houses and clerks in 

 town for the management of their 

 business, they were entitled to a 

 fair compensation to meet these 

 charges ; but if they overstepped 

 what was uoiid jidc due to them 

 for such compensation, and mixed 

 with it the consideration of their 

 advancement of money, that was 

 usury. This his Lordsiiip laid 

 down as unqnesiionable law. The 

 plaintiH's' counsel adduced evi- 

 dence, that one-half per cent. «as 

 the usual charge for business, such 

 - Jis the bankers transacted for the 

 defendants ; but in the cases ad- 

 duced, the parties mixed up the 

 risk they were at up«n the bills 

 nego( iated as part of the consi- 

 deration, and his Lordship ruled 

 that that was usury too, and refus- 

 ed the plaintiff's' counsel to take 

 Messrs. Kensingtons' risk into con- 

 sideration, offering to seal a bill of 

 exceptions, in order that the ques- 

 tion might be set at rest before the 

 House of Lords. He coocluded 



his charge to the Jiiry, by sayings , 

 that it was not less painful to 

 him to direct, than it would be to i 

 the Jury to find, that, in this case, 

 the evidence was irresistible : that 

 the comiiiission was an induce- 

 ment to the advances of money 

 ill question; and that, therefore, 

 they were usurious, and could not 

 be recovered at law, or proved 

 under a commission. Both his 

 lordship and the Jury were, how- 

 ever, bound to do their duty with 

 firmness, however hardly the per- 

 formance of that duty might affect 

 those whose misfortunes ought to 

 be treated with the tenderest re- 

 spect, and who appeared to have 

 deserved a better fate. 



The Jury, nevertheless, after 

 retiring for a very short time, found 

 their verdict for the |)laintitfs. 



Qu'ild-luiU, Wednesday, Decern- 

 her 22.— Siuin^s before Sir J. 

 Munsjield. — Schneider v. Healh. — 

 This was an action to recover the 

 deposit money (397/. •2a-.) paid on 

 the purchase of a ship, which ship 

 had since turned out to be unsea- 

 worthy and useless. 



Alexander Hutchinson, the 

 broker for the plaintiff, swore, that 

 on the 23rd day of July last he was 

 present at Lloyd's, when the ship 

 t/wnowas put up to sale : he bought 

 her for 1,580/., and paid down a 

 deposit of 397/. 2*. 1~he day pre- 

 vious to the sale he went to the 

 London-dock to examine the ves- 

 sel ; SIS far as he could judije she 

 was a good vessel ; fjut as she was 

 in the water, it was imsossilde for 

 him to inspect her hull, and keel, 

 and lower timliers. At the time 

 of the purchase he signefl a paper 

 of conditions, one of which was, 

 that the vessel should be taken 



