atkins case Willis versus Jernegan February if a person will enter into a hard  bargain with his eye open equity will not relieve he upon this foot only there  have be several transaction between the plaintiff and defendant in relation to  the defendant lottery or sale as it be call of plate jewel c and particular a  agreement in relation to the receipt or ticket in the sale a great number of  which to the amount of no less than eleven thousand have be deliver to the  plaintiff who be to pay a state price for they and if by engross such a  quantity he can sell they above par the profit let it be ever so great be to  go into the plaintiff pocket the plaintiff may have sell they to very great  advantage but by outstanding his market and insist a exorbitant premium he be  a considerable loser and now bring a bill to be relieve against the defendant  suggest the agreement to be hard and unconscionable and likewise for a open  account between he and the defendant the defendant set forth the whole  agreement and insist that there be no fraud or circumvention but that it be a  transaction carry on with the utmost fairness and a agreement enter into at  the plaintiff own request and that if it be not so beneficial a one as it may  have be it be entire owe to the mismanagement of the plaintiff and as to the  open account pray the defendant plead a state account in bar which have be  settle between he and the plaintiff some time after the sale or lottery be  finish and enter in a book that relate mere to the transaction between he and  the plaintiff and to no other purpose whatever and that the adjust of this  account have take up a week time at least and the plaintiff at the time and  often since have declare himself extreme well satisfy with it there be several  witness on the part of the defendant to support the agreement and the several  fact insist on by the answer but there be not a tittle of evidence on the  behalf of the plaintiff to support the allegation in his bill Lord chancellor  it be not sufficient to set aside a agreement in this court to suggest  weakness and indiscretion in one of the party who have engage in it for  suppose it to be in fact a very hard and unconscionable bargain if a person  will enter into it with his eye open equity will not relieve he upon this foot  only unless he can show fraud in the party contract with he or some undue mean  make use of to draw he into such atkins a agreement which be not pretend by  the plaintiff in the present case vide Chesterfleld v Janssen ante vol nicols  v gold Ves gwyne v Heaton bro Charles Rep Gartside v Isherwood ibidem  Heathcote v Paignon bro Charles Rep Lewis v pead Ves jun for from the evidence  he appear to have be so fond of this project of a sale of plate jewel c that  no person ever have such a easy stomach and quick digestion for he want to  have monopolize the whole number of ticket the plaintiff counsel have make two  objection to the defendant plea of a state account that it be not sign by the  party that the voucher be not deliver up at the time as to the first there be  no absolute necessity that it shall be sign by the party who have mutual deal  to make it a state account for even where there be transaction suppose between  a merchant in England and a merchant beyond sea and a account be transmit here  from the person who be abroad it be not the sign which will make it a state  account but the person to who it be send keep it by he any length of time  without make a objection which shall bind he and prevent his enter into a open  account afterward the account be sign by a witness atkins er p the second  objection be because the voucher be not deliver up now there be no doubt if  voucher be deliver up at the time it be a affirmation at least that the  account between the party be a state one but to make it so it be not absolute  necessary they shall be deliver up at the time the account be settle for  instance in the case of banker and their customer it be seldom do but the  draft which be make upon they be constant keep on file and at different time  when they settle account with you they only enter in a book which they give  you for that purpose the several receipt and payment during your transaction  with their shop and it will be imprudent in they to do otherwise because the  voucher be very often of use to they in clear up any dispute between their  shop and a three person Lord chancellor decree the plaintiff bill to be  dismiss with cost so far as the bill seek to open the state account it be  dismiss with cost Reg lib b fol