286 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1816. 



Mr, Justice Bayley and Mr. 

 Justice Abbot were of the same 

 opinion. 



Court of Exchequer. The King 

 V. Ridge. — This was a proceeding 

 by extent against John Ridge, 

 Esq. calling upon him to pay the 

 amount, witli the interest there- 

 on, of three bills for lOOOl. each, 

 drawn by the Earl of Moira, and 

 accepted by him, and made pay- 

 able at Messrs. Biddulph and Go's. 



Mr. Daimcey stated the case 

 to the jury. This, he said, was 

 a case, the statement and proof 

 of Avliich would occupy a %ery 

 short portion of their time. Tlie 

 simple facts were these : — Mr. 

 Austen, a partner in the banking- 

 house of Austen and Mauftde in 

 Henrietta-street, Covent-Garden, 

 who had been a receiver-general 

 of land and income tax for the 

 county of Oxford, had become 

 insolvent, and was considerably 

 indebted to the Crown. The 

 Crown wishing rather to come 

 upon any property of Mr. Austen 

 tlian upon that of his sureties, 

 issued an extent, under which an 

 inquisition having been taken, it 

 ■was ascertained that he had the 

 three bills in question in his pos- 

 session, and the present proceed- 

 ing was instituted to compel the 

 defendant to pay their amount, as 

 they were accepted by him. He 

 understood that the ground on 

 which the payment of those bills 

 was intended to be resisted was, 

 that they had come into Mr. Aus- 

 ten's possession by usury. Why 

 this defence had been set up, or 

 how Lord Moira could have been 

 concerned in an usurious trans- 

 action, it was not for him (Mr. 

 Dauncey) to riay ; but certain it 



was, that such was the defence 

 on which the payment of those 

 bills was to be resisted. It would 

 apjjear to the satisfaction of the 

 jury, that the bills were drawn 

 and signed by Lord Moira, and 

 accepted by Mr. Ridge ; and in- 

 deed he thought the jury would 

 require some very strong and 

 positive evidence, before they 

 could believe that a man of Mr. 

 Austen's experience would be so 

 dishonest, and even so rash, as 

 to take more than the legal in- 

 terest, where he must necessarily 

 be exposed to iletection, and to 

 the loss of liis money. 



John Green, a clerk to Mr. 

 Ridge, i)rovpd that the signatures 

 to the three bills were those of 

 Lord Moira and Mr. Ridge. The 

 bills were then put in, and read : 

 they were dated Portsmouth, 12th 

 of April, 1813, and made payable 

 twelve months after date. Here 

 the case for the Crown closed. 



Mr. Clarke, on the pari of the 

 defendant addressed the Jury, 

 and observed, that his learned 

 friend (Mr. Dauncey) had anti- 

 cipated the truth, when he alluded 

 to the defence intended to be set 

 up on the present case. That 

 defence was, that these bills had 

 been obtained by usury. He 

 Avoxild show, from incontroverti- 

 l)le evidence, thai treble the legal 

 rate of discount had been taken 

 in the first negotiation of them, 

 and if the jury were satisfied of 

 tliat fact, the learned judge would 

 tell them, that whether this ille- 

 gal discount had been taken by 

 Mr. Austen or by Mr. Maunde, 

 the effect was the same, and the 

 amount of them could not be re- 

 covered in law. He should also 

 observe, that the present process 



was 



