Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1838-04-27

Cssncsl.And dwell particularly On that psrt Of t
where Christ entered the temple and overtSrsv ,hs
sI 1sSs . 's Gl mS,ney changer, ! suppose.
religion; we dent meet here discuss the docrnS ~
Counssl-w. leave the cas-. under n. oh,,,. e
the Court. '"a'se ei
The Judge charged that the two notes ve,s &C.,.
distinct transactions; there was no doubt that ths
small note ceuld be recovered; if gentlemen will nav
exuavagantly for temporary loans of money thew
must DO 80, II they afford do so; the services
OF broker are valusble as any other person The
other note different; the right to recover depends on
fact winch you must pass upon; in one aspect il was
undoubtedly usurious; bat if Seymour sold il as
business note and once got into the market any
man had right to buy it, and it can be recovered:
inns 10 always the case where coercion no duress
mas been used to make man part with note against
his Will. Hit was only lent note, il had no vitality
III seymour put into circuation this was done 10
Brown; but this being the first transaction and this
being tainted with usury, if there had been no other
the note could not be recovered. But if Seymour held
IT against Underhll valid note he had right to
do what ne liked with it, You are, gentlemen, how
ever, 70 say wnether IN the ordinary sense of the
word ths was an exchange note; that is, transact
ton where each party holds the note of the other with
right TO each to use the same in anv wav thew
think proper Il appears that after Brown bought
this note for $1,000 from Seymour. he sold !, fnr
$1,000 to Mr.. Danforth, and he sold it for SLIGO To
Pomeroy. Now the sole question is this: if Under
hill received for this note two other notes from Sew
mour which ne had right to use, land one of which
IN cause tried yesterday, he said he did lse, that
becomes, IN Judgment Of law a valuable censidera-
ton, and the plaintiff can recover of Underhi and If
Seymour can't pay his notes, that's the defendants
misfortune and loss, and not the plaintiffs.
The jury retired for half an hour and returned with
verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of both
notes, but no interest
COMMON PLEAs.-Thursday, April 26th.-Before
John M. Whidden versus John Blunt This was
an important Mr.. Whiddon resided in Boston
Mr.. Blunt was his agent in New York. man
named T. M: Keys, drew q bill of exchange at GO
days on Mr.. Murdoch fer $500; this passed TO Mr..
Russell aad then to Mr.. Whidden, both of whom en-
dersed 1t. The day this became due KEYS forsed n
draft for sl363 45, dated Boston, Sept 27 1886 pur
porting TO be drawn by Otis Rich on Hubbard & Ca
sey OF this city, payable TO their own order and en-
dorsed by them payable TO George B. Warren. KEYS
took the draft to the Office of Osborn Sistare in Wall
street. and Mr. s. discounted it by giving 500 in cash
and note for the balance. The cash was mostly
ancWrent money. Keys get it exchanged at bro
kers and then in the space Of hour, went to John
Blunt who held the bill of exchange, and paid him
S4O0 on ltin bankable money. MI Blunt gave Keys
receipt for this In two hours, Sstare discovered
the forgery, and arrested Keys the latter told Mr. s.
that ne had paid Blunt s400; Mr. B. was sent for 10
the police Office and ultimately gave Osborn Il SIS
tare back the S4Oe, on their giving him bond of
indemnity 70 recover this s400, this action was
brought.
The counsel for the plaintiff con tended that ALTHOUGH
Keys got the money fraudulently yet as it was
changed by the brokers' il was no longer the dent-
cal money beongin 10 Osborn & Sstare, and as
Keys paid il to Blunt the agent of Whdden on the
Bill OF Exchange, Mr. Blunt ought TO have re-
turned II, and was liable for so doing
Mr. N. b. Blunt tried the cause very ably for his
brother, and referred to Gritty on Bills, D. 1853 464
and 10 the Chancelors decision in the case of the
robbery on board the steamboat SUM- when an in
junction was placed upon real estate on Staten Island
purchased with the stolen bank notes, many vears
after the robbery. He also directed the Court to
charge on three points, whist. Which party has
the greater claim IN equity 10 the meney-2d If the
equities are equal which has the legal right TO the mo-
ney and if neither has the legal right TO IT, which
has the pror equity. He admitted that where money
was paid over 10 party who became a bona fde
hslder, being ignorant Of the forgery, he was NOT
obliged to refund, unless it was paid over for pre-
contracted debt, and ne new consideration
Mr.. Morris summed up ably for the plaintiff
The Judge charged that in this no action could
lie against the broker because he gave valuable con-
slderauon for the money obtained by fraud but Os-
born O. Co., the persons defrauded had the robt "a
trace the money from hand TO hand till they found
IN possession of party Tor his agenU who gave M
new consideration for it, but who received il for nre
existing debt; finding here, in the hands of Mr.
Blunt Osborn IL Co. had a right TO interpose their
claim to the money and stop the payment of il "a
Whldden. True Mr.. Blunt gave a receipt for il. bur
receipt was an explanable instrument and net a
new or valuable consideration. He parted with potL
ing new on me fah OF the affair and his defence was
good lie did night TO pay il back to Osborn 81 Co
Tie could have paid II into the Court of Chancerv
and compelled Osborn & Co. on the one hand ana
Whdden on the other TO intcrpead for the
Of the Money and the costs would have swallowed an
oil the proceeds. y
Thejury found for the defendant
n