case richardson and gibbons assignee of alexander wilson a bankrupt plaintiff  bradshaw tailor and wilson defendant February the that draw and redraw bill of  exchange for large sum and a continuation of it be traffic in exchange and a  trade which will make a man liable to a commission of bankrupt though a loss  ensue to the bankrupt by so do a trial in the court of king bench before a  special jury for the county of Middlesex upon the follow issue out of the  court of chancery direct by Lord Hardwicke saint if Wilson be a trader or a  banker within the meaning of the act of parliament relate to bankrupt dly if  he have commit any act of bankruptcy within the say statute with regard to the  first it be prove that Wilson who be agent to several regiment from the year  to draw upon captain Johnson who be likewise a agent in Dublin by bill to the  amount of pound and upward and that Johnson atkins redrew to the amount of  pound and upward on Wilson but there be no commission money allow to either  side it be prove in the cause by Mr porter Mr Linch Mr Mathias Mr tessier and  other considerable merchant in the city of London that draw and redrawing bill  of exchange for such large sum and a continuation of it be a traffic in  exchange and a trade which in their apprehension will make a man liable to a  commission of bankruptcy though no commission money have be allow on either  side and notwithstanding a loss ensue by these transaction to the bankrupt the  evidence of Mr Wilson be a banker be that he keep a clerk who be in the nature  of a cashier to receive and pay money and that for several year together  officer and their widow and other person not belong to regiment pay money into  Wilson hand and the cashier give Accountable note for the same and these  person draw from time to time upon Wilson for such sum Payable either to  bearer atkins er p or order as they think proper but the book be not keep in  the same manner as banker do and it appear in proof that if Wilson receive any  large sum he pay it into the shop of his own banker messrs drummonds and from  the year to pay pound a month into the say shop and that he only have in cash  by he about or pound to answer any small draft but that for large one lie give  the person draft upon messrs drummonds the jury before they deliver their  verdict ask Lord chief justice lee whether such draw and redrawing as  aforesaid be in point of law a trade Lord chief justice lee say it be not  somuch a point of law as a fact to be determine by they on the usage and  opinion of merchant and that if they pay any credit to the merchant who have  be examine and be man of character this be a trade accord a verdict be give  for the plaintiff the jury on the first issue find Wilson a trader general  within the bankrupt act and on the second issue find he a bankrupt within the  say act see the distinction between this case and that of hankey v Jones Cowp  and the comment of Lord Mansfield upon the answer of the chief justice lee to  the question put by the jury in the former case