HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr1018 and id is 1 raw text is: CARLISLE V. TREARS
CARLISLE QUI TAm versus TREARS. If plaintiff declare upon a corrupt contract on
the 21st December, 1774, giving day of payment to the 23d December, 1776 ;
evidence of a contract on the 23d December, 1774, for two years, is a fatal
variance.
Upon shewing cause why the verdict found for the plaintiff in this case, upon the
eleventh count, should not be vacated, and instead thereof, a verdict entered for the
defendant, Lord Mansfield reported the case shortly as follows: This was an action
upon the Statute of Usury, 12 Ann. stat. 2, c. 16. The declaration consisted of a
variety of counts, and upon not guilty pleaded, the jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff. The single question arises upon the last count, which stated, that upon a
corrupt contract made on the 21st December, 1774, the defendant received 61. 8s.
upon the loan of for giving day of payment to the 23d December, 1776. The
only witness who was called, proved the contract to have been made on the 23d
December, 1774, and he said, he understood it to be for two years. I thought this a
variance, but reserved it for the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Wallace for the defendant, and in support of the rule, insisted, that the time
of forbearance was as necessary to be precisely stated as the sum.
Mr. Davenport contra, for the plaintiff argued, that supposing the contract was
made on the 23d December, and the forbearance to be for two years, it was equally
usurious, and therefore, the variance was immaterial.-But, by Lord Mansfield, there
is no colour for the plaintiff's recovering upon this count. The usurious contract
must be proved as laid: whereas, the contract, proved in this case, is totally different
from the contract stated in the declaration.
Per Cur. Rule absolute.
[672] REx versus RODDAM. 1777.
This was a rule upon the defendant to shew cause, why he had not obeyed a writ
of habeas corpus, requiring him to bring up the bodies of two persons ad testificandum.
The writ was directed to the defendant as commanding officer of a man of var, on
board of which, the two persons intended to be brought up, were in the capacity of
common sailors, but not as prisoners.
Mr. Buller, who shewed cause, said, a decisive answer to the application was, that
the writ was not signed by a Judge.
Lord Mansfield.-I refused to sign the writ, because there was no affidavit that
the men had been served with subpoenas, and that they were willing to attend: and
without such an affidavit, the writ ought not to go: they can never be brought up as
prisoners against their consent. Therefore discharge the rule with costs.
REx versus HORNE. Wednesday, Nov. 19th, 1777. Upon an information against
the defendant for a libel, for that he, &c. wickedly, maliciously and seditiously
did write and publish, &c. a certain false, scandalous, and seditious libel of and
concerning His Majesty's Government and the employment of his troops accord-
ing to the tenor and effect following; (setting forth the libel verbatim).-The
words of and concerning are a sufficient introduction of the matter contained
in the libel, and a sufficient averment that it was written of and concerning the
King's Government, and the employment of his troops.
[Referred to, Bradlaugh v. Beg., 1878, 3 Q. B. D. 631.]
This was an information filed against the defendant, by Edward Thurlow, Esq.
His Majesty's Attorney General, on behalf of His Majesty, for writing, printing, and
publishing two libels.
The first count in the information stated, that the said John Horne, being a
wicked, malicious, seditious, and ill-disposed person, and being greatly disaffected to
our said present Sovereign Lord the King, and to his administration of the Government
of this kingdom, and the dominions thereunto belonging, and wickedly, maliciously,
and seditiously intending, devising, and contriving to stir up and excite discontents
and seditions among His Majesty's subjects, and to alienate and withdraw the affectil,
fidelity, and allegiance of His said Majesty's subjects from His said Majesty, and to
1300
2 COWP 672.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1018&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)