case morris against MCULLOCK that may money advance for procure a commission  in the Marine the purchaser after six month be discover to have wear a livery  be discharge the money decree to be refund with interest lib Reg b foe bill by  plaintiff to be repay a sum of pound which he have pay the defendant for  procure he a commission of lieutenancy in the Marine the case be the defendant  be a linen draper and enter into treaty with the plaintiff who be servant to  captain ambler Bendish and wear a livery to procure he a commission in the  Marine for pound the plaintiff not have the money apply to his master to lend  he pound to pay for the commission which he refuse and give as a reason that  it will be very improper for he to be instrumental in get the plaintiff who be  a servant into the Marine as a officer and that all the officer of the corpse  will be offend at it and captain Bendish who be examine as a witness in the  cause say that the defendant be in the passage of his house when he give his  reason to the plaintiff for refuse to lend he the money and that he leave  theparlourdoor ajar on purpose that the defendant may hear the reason and most  assure believe that the defendant do hear it the treaty however go on and the  plaintiff have secure the money some other way agree for the commission and  accord the defendant be acquaint with mrs Stot who be or pretend to be the  wife of a captain Stot and be intimate acquaint with the late admiral Boscawen  do by her mean and interest with the admiral who be then one of the lord of  the admiralty obtain a commission of second lieutenant for the plaintiff who  pay he for it pound of which the defendant pay mrs Stot pound for her service  the plaintiff go to Portsmouth with his commission and after have serve about  six month be discover to have be a livery servant upon which the officer  refuse to roll with he and send a letter of it to the secretary of the  admiralty which be lie before the lord of the admiralty and the secretary by  their direction write a letter in answer commend they and order the plaintiff  to be discharge and it appear in evidence that the plaintiff be discharge in  consequence of that letter and for have be a livery servant and for no other  reason it be argue for the plaintiff saint that he have be impose upon by the  defendant and have not the benefit of the commission for which he have  contract and that the defendant know the plaintiff can not hold it dly that  ambler the court will decree the money to be repay upon public consideration  for the same reason that the court decree against place brocage bind ambler er  p on the other side it be argue for the defendant that the plaintiff be not  impose upon that he have what he bargain for which be the commission that the  defendant do not warrant his qualification and the case of Joe v ash pre in Ch  be cite that the plaintiff can have no merit in a court of equity for if the  transaction be wrong and such as ought to be discourage he be a party to it it  be also say and indeed prove by mrs stot evidence but which be not credit by  the court that the commission be first obtain for the defendant but that his  wife be unwilling he shall take it for fear he shall be send abroad he decline  it and prevail upon mrs Stot to recommend the plaintiff and it be argue from  thence that the defendant be not to be consider as sell his interest so much  as sell his commission which be not uncommon and the crown often give leave to  do it that there be nothing illegal in such a transaction and no imposition on  the plaintiff that the plaintiff remedy if he be entitle to it be at law in a  action for money have and receive when the whole transaction will be disclose  to a jury and they will give proper damage that nothing stand in the way of  such a action and therefore this be not like the case of place or marriage  brocage bind where the bind be good at law and can only be set aside in a  court of equity Lord Henley chancellor I have not the least doubt on this case  and if there be no precedent of such a determination as I shall make I have no  scruple to make one and shall glory in do it the general question be whether  this case be within the jurisdiction of the court I lie down this rule that if  a man sell his interest to ambler procure a person a office of trust or  service under the government it be a contract of turpitude it be act against  the constitution by which the government ought to be serve by fit and able  person recommend by the proper officer of the crown for their ability and with  purity this case be within the reason of the determination upon marriage  brocage and post obit bind it be one of the most useful of the court and ought  to be exercise upon all occasion by this mean the most innocent and pure  officer of the crown who business it be to recommend may have his honour  traduce and scandalize it be no uncommon thing to sell commission in the army  but then it be do with the leave of the crown as a method to reward merit with  economy where a officer who have deserve well desire to retire and the person  to succeed he be examine by the secretary at war and approve as a proper  person that be not the case here but the defendant sell his interest with mrs  slot to procure a commission the case of Joe v ash be very different the  commission be sell by leave of the crown the defendant surrender and it be the  plaintiff fault that he do not take it I be also of opinion that if the  defendant may sell his interest yet the plaintiff have be impose upon I do not  believe the defendant ever intend to take the commission himself his name be  not enter on the listen nor be it in other respect at all probable and he know  that the plaintiff be incapable of it by have wear a livery decree the pound  to be repay with interest from the time it be advance by the plaintiff and  though it appear in the cause that the plaintiff have receive upward of for  pay his lordship will not allow it to be deduct nor will he take any notice of  mrs Stot have be pay pound but charge the defendant with the whole money for  case in which relief have be give on the ground of public policy see Bellamy v  burrow can t Talbot Purdy v Stacey burr Harrington v Du chatel bro c c  Garforth v Fearon h Bl Hartwell v Hartwell Ves Vauxhall bridge company v earl  Spencer mad Woodhouse v Meredith I W law v law p wms and since in such case  the court proceed sole on the ground of public policy it be no objection to  the relief be grant that the person who seek it be himself sharing in sin see  Debenham v ox Ves hatch v hatch Ves saint John v saint John Ves see Osborne v  William Ves by ld Thurlow in Neville v Wilkinson bro c c and Wilkinson v  kitchen ld raym S c cite bro c g and see in case of marriage brocage bind  smith v Haytwell ante and note there ambler er p