Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-07-22

|
frewardng his industry. This subject pre-
sents such variety of branches, that 1
could pursue them beyond the limits of a
letter, orthe patience of my friend, both of
which requ re me 10 conclude
Z" AS you express great anxiety upon this
subject, and IL you should feel at all inte-
rested in these remarks, / will continue
them in my next"
a SPECIMEN OF COUNTY COURT
PLEADING.
We became possessed of the following ma
nuscript by aces dent, and re perfectly
unacquainted with the history and par
ties of the cause. The question which it
presents is ofvery interesting Importance,
and affords a subject of serious legal con-
temptation. Circumstances induce US to
believe that this speech was delivered by
some young gentleman upon his first APP
pearance at the bar in one of the adjacent
counties The case we expect must have
excited great deal oflocal agitation, from
the following speech, which we can but
consider as happy omen of the Spc' k
er's future elevation The history of the
caseis too fully delineated to require any
preliminary hrosasis.
THIS cause simply depends upon the es-
Establishment of two points. Was there a
contract And if so, was that contract u
surious?
For the proof of these points, I shall re-
ly altogether upon the answer itself.
The answer states in the first place, that
the plaintiff in equity requested the defen-
dant to "restcre his custom 10 his Old neigh
bor." This was refused
The plaintiff again comes to the tlefendd
ant as stated in the answer, and tells him,
that if he would put down his shop, he
would do his work so low, that it should be
manifesily to the advantage of the defen-
ant. This it appears was also refused !;
but i'll so feeble, mild, and concilatIng a
manner, that it did not deter the plaintiff
from repeating his propositions.
Accordingly the plaintiff third time goes
TO the defendant, and after urging what he
had before advanced upon the subject, went
on to state, that he was DESTROYS to pay to
a mercantile firm, the sum of $500, and,
that if the defendant would put down his
shop, and lend him that sum, he would do
his work for nothing. This the defendant
again refuses; because, as he tells the
plaintiff, which is part of his answer, If
he was to accede to his proposition, his
conduct might be misreprescnted by the
plaintiff, or others. Now what inference
I 1Y.ax g
refusal9 What meaning does this language
speak? IF the contract proposed had been
really such as the defendant states it TO
have been; if the plaintiff mad engaged to
do the defendants work for nothing, provi-
ded the defendant would not rival him in
his trade; or, if, as stated in some part of
the answer, this had been a fair purchase
of labor-what anticipation could the de-
PENDANT have had, that his conduct was Ii
able to censuTe? Here sir the clovem foot
begins appear: The defendant was afraid
20 trust the plaintiff; he was afraid that he
would do~hat he actually has done seek re-
lief, from eXtortion & oppression, under the
statute Of usury. Thence SIR the caution
with which the defendant closed this con-
tract; and thence the attempt, which lac
has made IN his answer, to- Withdraw the
attention from the atrocious circumstances
| OF tniS DnSineSS, ana Tx " upon those that
have no real relation To it, / had thought
that the old fox was too much accustomed
to the wndings and doublings of pecuniary
speculation, to have made such an unwary
confesslon--but according to the proyerb
no man IS always wise.
The answer goes ont state thac the pltf
endeatOred to obviate the objection OF the
defendants lively sensibility with respect tc
his reputation; that isno doubt, he promis.
cd the defendant not to plead the statute
! of usury (; this is the only construction
of which this part OF the answer is sucstp.
fuble. Bit the defendant it seems still re-
jected his proposition. Prudence and a.
varice had not yet decided the combat; al
length avarce prevailed for, says the de-
| fendant, being solicited again and again,
" he the defendant" to use the identical
words in the answer, "did at length con.
sent" Now what dtd he consent to? He
consented tolend the plaintiff $500, for the
use of which, he was to dohis black smith,
work for nothing. Here then, the CONTRACT
IS acknowledged, in explicit terms.
| But the defendant has endsavored to 10.
volve this plain agreement in much conlu.
1 sion and iDfriracv nv crnuccfiuor with ~ o..