The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1812-12-05

act extends to impose on the plaintiff .he los.
of his principal sum due under the usurious
Contract. While such a construction would
as to that extent, operate Il repeal of the sta
tute Of usury, ia all cases whatsoever secur-
ed BY deeds OF trust, as now prac,ised upon
| and understood the construction under
which we now act does nor go one jot further
than the case last put, of relieving AGAINST a
lIudg nent obtained by surprise in case
OF usurv. In both cases, the aid of Court
OF Equity is afforded, to enable the Court of
Law to annul the uSurious contract altoee-
thcr with this strong feature in favor of
the case now before us, that the plaintiff has
newer before had an opportunity to do it,
The interference OF a Court of Equity i'm
such case. SO far as to permit an Enquiry,
by Court of Law, into the validity of the
Contract. is not such mighty boon as ought
to subjective plaintiff to the loss of his prin-
cipai sum. 1t is a power which is even ex-
ercised by the Courts of Law as is seen in
The case OF Cooke VS. Jones, Cogpfy, 727. In
that case, Judgment mad been entered up,
upon warrant of attorney, and a scire ia
c'oS was depending to revive and enforce the
same. Cn a suggestion, that the conside-
ration of the Judgment was usurious, the
Court or Kings bench stayed hebroceed-
lngs upon the seire /ocfGs, aud directed an
issue to try the validity of the contrac. ON
which the Judgment was founded, on the
ground (Which most emphaticalIy applies
to the case before us,) that the defendant
= mad Rad no opportunity to plead the sta
tute OF usury, and was therefore without
rei,ef, but bv the interposition of the Court"
~ TINS power was .rightful!y exercised,
without condition, by Court of Law, IN
reiation to Judgment passing at its own
har, & IN some sense receiving the sane ion
ana rat iication of Inc Court, it ought, a for
'io'1 tn be exercised in like manner by a
: curt OF Equity, in relation to a transaction,
passing IN fatS suggested to be tainted with
usury, and presented in a form calculated to
eiude every other Jurisdiction, save the H.
silal and salatary Jurisdiction of such Court.
when an usurious contract is TO be enforced
y mode defying the power of the other
tribunals OF Justice, a Court Of Equity will
De neither tardy, nor rigorous, in extending
ITS aid to prevent it.
The result of the foregoing observations,
az applied to the case before us, is that, as
the ease made by the bill is not that embra-
ced by the third section of the act for sup
preston OF usury =; as the Appellant wanted
no discovery from the Appellee, but only
found 1t necessary to apply to the Court of E.
quity TO stay the trustee from selling, until
the question of usury should be enquired in
10, before some competent tribunal the
Chahceilor ought not to have imposed on
MN the loss of the principal sum, bat he
should have enjoned the trustee from sell
ing until by some proper proceeding to be
instituted by the Appellee, he should estab-
ilsh the validity of his contract i'm which
case the injunction should be dissolved; x
IN the Contrary evert,perpetuated in the for
mer case also. the deeds (being then cleans
ca OF their nsurious faint by the Judgment
OF a competent tribunal,) should undoubted-
" De .held as security to ensure the
payment of the money.
On these grounds, we are unanimously of
OPINION that the decree should be reversed,
win costs, and the cause remandcd to the
Court OF Chancery for the Richmond dis
trict' to be finally proceeded in, pursuant to
the principles now declared
Il Short Discourse on Long Subject.
f" OUR FRIENDS IN CoNcREsS." =.
Castierrugh.
| We draw the text, not from the Prophets
or the Apostles. from those godly men who
once shone on the Holy land, nor even from
the sages of our own soil. from Washington
or Franklin, but from foreign Minister, at
tins time an enemy, who sways the pen in
the-b British department of state, and who
has been emphaticai.y styled the Irish blood
Mound. .. -. t..-.' -.
We shall treat his words, first one by one,
fand tnen i'll Connection with each other.
| C"r-Npt your-nou, your frienos, but our
lTrIends-not the friends of Jonathan Rus
sell but OF Vlscount Castlereagh. When
we say, our friends, we mean too by way of
EcontradIstiaction not your friends, but ours
FTfends-one of the most endearing cpl =
thets In the world need not cite Dr.
johnson to show that it is one vino loves
you, ore who would do almost any thing to
serve you, to Cherish, giving you sad and
comfort "--IHis word too, is used by way
lot contradistincfion to enemies as if he
| might have SAID, not enemies, but friends.
AS when the Declaration ofIndehes1dence
says, " We hold them (he British, like the
rest OF mankind, enemies in zyar, I'm peace
| iriends.--L nus. taking the two words tore.
lher, our friends means by way of contra
distinction your enemies.
L--not our of---npt out of the u States
as London, Edinburg, or Dublin, at Kings
ton or at Quebec, but in, within the very
bosom OF our Country, surrounded by every
thing that should MAKE that country dear to
fuS.
| Congress Mot in the shades of private
life, not where friends have little noytr
Ito serve you, but in the hu6Hc Councils, IN
that very branch of the sovereign power
which makes war and provides its sup
plies.
| ouch are the portentous words Of Castle
reagh. =" Our friends ia Congress" --vour
enemies in the very bosom of the puolic
councils WHO is ii that screens the Bri
tish wrongs Our friends in Congress-
Who IS it that opposes the war? our