£80 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1816. 



partner in the house of Moline, 

 who traded in Spanish horse- 

 hides, and the latter having be- 

 come bankrupt, Mr. Dystcr 

 claimed a debt of nearly 20,0001. 

 which was resisted by the assig- 

 nees, as illegal. Mr. Dyster then 

 presented a petition to the Lord 

 Chancellor, praying to be allowed 

 to prove his debt, and the facts 

 alleged in support of this appli- 

 cation formed the subject of the 

 present argument. 



On the part of the assignees it 

 was contended by Mr. Hart, Mr. 

 Bell, and Mr. Montague, that the 

 petitioner was not entitled to 

 prove; first, because as a broker 

 he could not act at all as a mer- 

 chant ; and, 2dly, on the ground 

 of the innuorality of the tians- 

 action. To establish the first 

 point, the learned Coimsel insist- 

 ed on the construction of an ex- 

 pired stiitute of King William, 

 which was renewed by a sta- 

 tute of Queen Anne, where- 

 by it was enacted, that no per- 

 son should act as a broker in 

 the city of London, imless .sjje- 

 cially authoiised by the Ltu'd 

 Mayor and Aldermen, and sub- 

 ject to such rules and regulations 

 for good beha\ iour as they should 

 think fit and reasonable. By vir- 

 tue of this statute, the Lord 

 Mayor and Aldermen were stated 

 to have made a certain bye-law^ 

 and to have ini))osed on every 

 person who ap})lied to be ad- 

 mitted a broker, the necessity of 

 executing a bond, with certain 

 conditions, and of taking an oath 

 for the faithful discharge of his 

 duty. The bye-law, it was ar- 

 gued, contained the regulations 

 to which the broker was to be 

 fubject^ namely, that he should 



not deal as a merchant in the 

 same transaction ; and this bye- 

 law being authorised by the sta- 

 tute, had all the force of a posi- 

 tive enactment. In support of 

 the second position, it was con- 

 tended, that the bond and oath 

 restrained the petitioner from 

 acting contrary to the before- 

 meniianed rules and regula- 

 tions, and, consequently, that the 

 transaction in question was im- 

 moral, and as such was prohi- 

 bited by the principles of the com- 

 mon law. 



On the part of the petitioilef. 

 Sir S. llomilly, Mr. Cooke, Jand 

 Mr. Roupell, contended, tliat the 

 gentleiuen on the other side had 

 argired upon s^fpposition of a byte 

 law, which had all tlte effect of a 

 statute law, whereas tlie statute 

 in question, which was purely a 

 local statute, gave no power 

 whatever to the city of London 

 to make bye laws, but only to pre- 

 scribe regulations as to the con- 

 ditions on which a person should 

 be allowed to act as a broker. It 

 was, indeed, a most gratuitous 

 assumption that there existed any 

 bye-law, and if such bye-laW 

 had actually been made, it seemed 

 extraordinary that the bond should 

 take no notice of it. All that the 

 Mayor and Aldermen had power 

 to do was, that as soon as thejr 

 found a man acting contrary to 

 the conditions of the bond, they 

 could enforce the penalty against 

 him. But it had lieen said there 

 was an oath, and tliat the Court 

 would not assist the. petitioner to 

 recover his demand, in violation 

 of that solemn engagement. This 

 was jiuich the most serious part 

 of the case, not only to the indi- 

 vidual concerned in this question, 



but 



