The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-02-06

Feb.5- Toombs 81 WWiagtor D. Paul r. Hodge.-
Thedefendant contracted to build hre steamengint
for certain insurance companies, to be mashed IL
four months, for which he to receive nearly
$4,000 Being DESTROYS of an advance in order to pro-
coed with the work. he made apple ,tion fer such
the extent Of $500. The insurance companies were
willing to let him have the money, provided he
gave security that it should be returned in the
event of his not fulfilling his contract The plain
ts were at that time in good business ~ hatters,
but had since stopped and encountered all sorts Of
forth, and 80 forth ct cetera, and are at present
among the missing They went security for the
safety Of the Sl6O0. and were to receive from de-
PENDANT lwho gave 2 written agreement to that
effect the sum OF $500 as bonus for doing So
The work was finished, gave satisfaction, and Mr..
Hodge received his money; but conceiving il to
have been rather hard bargain, he refused to pay
the $500. Action was brought, when the defendant
commended that usury had been practiced asserting
that man could exercise such by loaning his Gre
dit at exorbitant rate, equally he had loaned
money. The plea was allowed, and the jury found
for defendant. Application was then made for a
new trial, and granted, aud issue is new joined
Judge Ingraham, in his charge to the jury, stated
that they were bound to receive the law an laid
down by the Court, and not as stated to them BY
counsel. A full bench had decided that q contract
Of this kind, where person hazards various con-
tingeneies, is not like a mere premise to pay mo-
Aey and therefore does mot come under the statute
Of usury.. If they believe the agreement to have
been fairly entered into, they were bound to find
fer plaintiff. Verdict accordingly, in the sum Of
$500 damages, and six cents costs. y la
DEclsToNs.-John d. Ackley W Jos. F. 1T
cN.-The defendant, in July, l84O, gave check 10
H. P. Heideman on the Merchants Exchange
Bank, for 600, which was endorsed by Hedeman
and paid to Mr.. Beach, broker, Broadway, for lot
terry tickets, and by him transferred to the plaintiff
The check was not presented at the Bank till DE.
cember, nor protested till some time afterwards.-
Action was brought to recover the amount, and
verdict found for plaintiff. Motion was then made
for new trial, on the ground, FIRST, that the pro-
test should have been made forthwith, and second.
", that the check having been given for lottery
tickets, was not valid the transaction itself being
illegal. The Court, in its decision. stated that
they were averse to requiring the presenment Of
check the same = bill Of exchange or bank
note. The election ~ regarded the lottery tick
cts appeared to be well founded New trial grant
ed, with costs to abide the event. 8f
Wi4iam Benjamin Jr. and Volney Gum W. Mat
thias J Coeks-This was m action on q note given
by defendants to J. d. Withers l. Sons, dated 7th
September, l64l, At four months. Action was
brought and demurrer put in by Mr.. p. J. Joa-
chimssen, attorney for defendant, contsnding the
matter principally ON the ground that the decla-
ration stated that the defendant "were" indebted,
&c. A motion was made declaring the demurrer
frivolous. Motion for frivolossness of demurrer
granted. -