yesterday, we have considered the same, and have likewise the
opinion thereon of our client, Mr. Solomons. As we do now recall
them, you nominated three principal grounds why you should not be
pressed to pay the bill drawn by Mr. Heminge. First, that you
received no value therefor, having put your name to the bill upon
the assurance that it was a matter of form, and to oblige a friend.

To this we rejoin, that by the law of estoppel you are precluded to
deny the consideration after the bill hath passed into the holding
of a discounter unnotified of the facts.

Second, That, as our client paid but £1 for the bill, he should not
exact £10 thereon. To the which we reply, that, so a valuable
consideration was passed for the bill, the law looketh not to its
exact amount. It is also asserted by our client that, beyond actual
coin given for the bill, he did further release to John Heminge
certain tinsel crowns, swords, and apparel appurtenant to the
representation of royalty, which had before then--to wit, two weeks
before--been pledged to him for the sum of 8 shillings, borrowed by
the said Heminge.

Third, That it was impossible for you to pay the bill, you having no
money, and receiving no greater income than 22 shillings per week,
all of which was necessary to the maintenance of yourself and
family. We regret again to call to your notice the Statute of 16
Eliz., entitled, "Concerning the Imprisonment of Insolvent Debtors,"
which we trust you will not oblige us to invoke in aid of our
suffering client's rights. To be lenient and merciful is his
inclination, and we are happy to communicate to you this most
favorable tender for an acquittance of his claim. You shall render