The Columbia Democrat. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1837-1850, 1837-10-21
------------|-- :
VARIOUS MATTERS.
tUSURY.


A case of considerable interest, both TO
borrowers and lenders of money, was re-
Gently decided before Judge Irving, in the
New York Court of Common Pleas. The
facts, as elected during the trial, were as
follows: Mr.. Piper, the defendant testified
1hatih'l June 1886 he borrowed of Mr.. Geo.
G. Sickles, broker at No. 81 Wall street,
the sum of 1929, giving him his check for
that amount and pronlissory note for $400
asa collateral security, for which he paid
him an interest of half per cent day up to
the 26th of January following. About this
time Mr.. Sickles, as he alleged, being push
ed for money, called upon him for the a.
mount Of the check.
Piper told him that it was not in his pow
ct to pay the money then, and furthermore,
that he should not stand the payment of ex-
horbitant interest any longer, whereupon
Sickles put the collateral note in the Bank
for Collection, where, after having arrived
at its maturity, it was dishohored by nom
payment. Piper having been subsequently
ocaled upon by Sickles for payment, gave
him new note, at four months, endorsed
by Blake the Plaintiff in the present case,
merely for his, tPiper's,) accommodation
the same for which this action was
brought-which note was also suffered to
be protested. Piper testified furthermore,
that he had conveyed to Sickles a wagon
worth SO in payment for interest, and had
at Varioes times paid Sickles and Porter the
plaintiff, in shape of usurious interest, al
most as much money as the face of the
note. To rebut this testimony, Sickles de-
posed that he sold the note, two days after
1t was made, to the plaintiff, Porter, at g
discount of six and half per cent. per an.
mum, and that no extra interest whatever
had been paid upon it previously. He
however, admitted that he was indebted tc
Piper the sum of $40 which he was willing
to be taken out of the $400, and the balance
between that and the 1923 he claimed a:
interest due upon the check, transaction
with (which the plaintiff had nothing TO dc
the note being sold to him for its face
deducting only 6 and half per cent TO
which he paid down the money.
The Court charged, that usury consist
ed in taking greater rate ofinterest than
per cent per annum; that in order to vitlat'
the note and destroy the debt, it was neces
sary for the jury TO satisfy themselves tia
transaction was tainted with usuty, ant
that the plaintiff had a knOtcledge Of tn
fact at the time of the purchase, that it came
bona fde into the hands of the plaintiff
he was an honest holder of the note, and
had come into the possession without hi
knowledge of the Isury, he must recover
That if he made the purchase fairly, with
out knowledge of the usury at the time
il made no difference in the case, what h
might have been told oft afterwards. Th
decision of the jury must depend upon tn
degree of credit they should attach to tn
conflicting statements of the witnesses.
the statement of Piper was true, the trans
action was usurious, and the plaintiff coul'
not recover. If the jury found for the de
PENDANTS, however, it could only be fo
Blake, as Piper could not be witness il
his own case, and it was optional for tn
Jury either to return a verdict for the full
amount of the note, or the sum of 1929 pro
we'd to have been actually loaned to Piper
The jury found verdict for the plaintiff
against Piper for the whole amount, and fo
the defendant as far as related to Blake
BickneHs Reporter.