1840. REGULA GENERALIS. IT is ordered, that the rule relating to enlarged rules made in Michaelmas Term, in the 30th year of his late Majesty, King George the Second, and the several rules relating to the peremptory paper made in Hilary Term, in the 6th year, in Hilary Term, in the 15th year, in Michaelmas Term, in the 17th year, in Hilary Term, in the 36th year, and in Easter Term, in the 41st year of his late Majesty, King George the Third, be rescinded. And it is further ordered, that no further rules be placed in the peremptory paper, (except as to the cases already set down therein,) be abolished, and that, in future, all enlarged rules shall be drawn up for the first and other days in the next term, in the order in which they shall have been enlarged, and in such number for each day as the Master may see fit, and either party may bring on such enlarged rules, and the Court will dispose of them in the same manner as if brought on in the Term in which they were moved for respectively. By the Court. 211 COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Hilary Term. IN THE FOURTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF VICTORIA. PARKER and Another v. SMART. at DEBT on a bond, dated in June, to recover 3,000l., with Bere, having, on a former day, obtained a rule nisi accordingly, Cockburn shewed cause A stamp which covers the principal sum is sufficient, Pruessing v. Ing (a), Dixon v. Robinson (b), Foreman v. Jeyes (c), Dearden v. Binns (d). There is no difference in principle, where the interest is to be calculated from a preceding day. A promissory note for the payment of 30%. at a future day, with interest from the date, is equally as much an instrument to secure a sum (a) 4 B. & Ald. 204. (b) 1 M. & Rob. 115; 5 C. & P. 96. (c) 5 C. & P. 419. 1841. A bond dated in June, was conditioned for payment of 3,000l., with interest, at 5 per cent., from March pre that a 71. stamp was sufficient. ceding: Held, 1841. PARKER v. SMART. exceeding 30%., as the bond in the present case is to secure a sum exceeding 3,000%, yet a stamp covering the 30%, has and Another been held sufficient, Pruessing v. Ing (a). The true test by which to discover what is principal, and what is interest, is by ascertaining on what sum the further interest is to accrue, here, it is on the 3,000%, and not on the additional sum, which was due for interest from the 1st of March, to the date of the bond. Bere, in support of the rule. The stamp is not sufficient. The words of the act are, "any definitive and certain sum of money;" here the definitive and certain sum of money is the 3,000l. plus the interest up to the date of the bond, Dickson v. Cass(b). [Parke, B.-I question much, whether Dickson v. Cass can be supported after Paddon v. Bartlett(c) and Doe v. Snaith (d).] The question is, what is due at the time the security is taken? It can make no difference, that it is secured under the name of interest. PARKE, B.-I think the stamp is sufficient. The words "definitive and certain sum" cannot correctly apply to interest, the amount of which depends on the length of time which elapses before the money is repaid. The stamp to be imposed is to be in proportion to the principal sum secured. ALDERSON, B.-The interest is in the nature of damages for the detention of the principal, the definitive sum is the sum mentioned in the bond. GURNEY, B.-There is no distinction between bye-gone and future interest. Rule discharged. (a) 4 B. & Ald. 204. (b) 1 B. & Ad. 343. (c) 2 Ad. & Ell. 9. 1841. WARD v. LLOYD, and Another. copy of a writ was indorsed of summons "This writ was IN this case, the indorsement on the copy of the writ of Where the G. T. White, having, on a former day, obtained a to set aside the copy and service thereof, rule Humfrey shewed cause, and cited Hennah v. Whyman (a). ROLFE, B.-The indorsement is certainly insufficient. The form is given as an example, and should be followed. (a) 2 C., M. & R. 239. Rule absolute. issued by A. said and service for irregularity. HUMPHREYS v. O'CONNELL. ASSUMPSIT by indorsee against acceptor of a bill of To an action exchange, drawn by one H. Barnett, for 500l., payable six months after the date thereof, and indorsed by H. Barnett to Moss and Humphreys, and by them to the plaintiff. Pleas, First, that long before the drawing or accepting the said bill of exchange, in the first count of the declaration mentioned, to wit, on the 1st day of February, in the year of our Lord, 1839, and on divers other days and times, afterwards, and before the 22nd day of April, in the year of by indorsee defendant lent to the de fendant certain sums of money for the purpose of gaming, and that for securing pay ment of the same, the defendant accepted certain bills of exchange, in lieu of which the bill declared on was given, and that the plaintiff had notice of the premises. 2ndly, a similar plea, alleging that the drawer, and certain persons, to the defendant unknown, won money of him, by gaming. Held, that de injurià, was a good replication. 1841. HUMPHREYS v. O'CONNELL. our Lord, 1839, the said H. Barnett did knowingly lend to the defendant, and the defendant did borrow of him, divers sums of money, amounting, to wit, to 650l., for the purpose of enabling the defendant illegally to game and play therewith, at a certain illegal game, played with dice, called or known by the name of French hazard, contrary to the form of the statute, in such case made and provided; and the said H. Barnett, at the times of his so lending the said monies, well knew that the defendant so borrowed the same for the purpose aforesaid; and that for securing the payment of the said sums so lent, as aforesaid, he, the defendant, afterwards, to wit, on the 22nd day of April, in the year of our Lord, 1839, accepted three several bills of exchange, drawn by the said H. Barnett, upon, and directed to the defendant, and payable to the said H. Barnett, one of the same being for the payment of 200., one month after the date thereof, another of the same, being for the payment of 2007., two months after the date thereof, and the other of the same, being for the payment of 250%., three months after the date thereof; and the defendant says, that long before the drawing or acceptance of the said bill, in the said first count mentioned, to wit, on the 26th day of May, in the year of our Lord, 1839, and on divers other days and times afterwards, and before the 29th day of August, in the year of our Lord, 1839, the said H. Barnett did, knowingly, lend to the defendant, and the defendant did borrow of him, divers other sums of money, amounting, to wit, to 565., for the purpose of enabling the defendant to game and play therewith, at a certain illegal game, played with dice, called or known by the name of French hazard, contrary to the form of the statute, in such case made and provided; and the said H. Barnett, at the times of his so lending the said monies, well knew that the defendant so borrowed the same for the purpose aforesaid; that the said two bills, so payable at two months and three months after the date thereof, being overdue and unpaid, and the said sum of 5651. being also unpaid to the said H. Barnett, he, the defendant, in |