Case ID: scl_9/html/0200-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Nott. \n      \n      Gantt, J. dissenting,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tidmore & Harman against Boyce & Harrington.
    ' verdict being 'note given for money won at granted,new trial
    This ivas ah action of assumpsit on a note of hand. The defence was an illegal consideration. A witness was called, who proved that A he was present when a note was given for the amount expressed in this note by the defendant to the payee. He believed this to be the same note. He was pretty certain it was. He could not swear positively. The case was tried at Newberry, Fall Term, 1816, before Mr. Justice JYott. He informed the Jury, that a note given for money won at cards was bottomed on an unlawful consideration, and void. They, however, found a verdict for the plaintiff A motion was now made for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Nott.

Our act of Assembly makes all securities given in consideration of money won at cards void, even in the hands of an innocent endorsee. With the policy of the law the Court has nothing to do. It is sufficient that ita lex scripta est. This note is of that description. The verdict, therefore, is against law and evidence, and a new trial must be granted.

Colcoclc, Cheves, and Johnson, J. concurred.

Gantt, J. dissenting,

gave the following opinion:

«i ¶ ,¶ I dissent in this case, on the ground that there was no positive testimony identifying the note to be the same; and that it was a fact proper for the consideration of a J,ury, whose verdict should be conclusive respecting it.