The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-04-16
Superior Court.
Before Judge Vanderpoel.

ApRn l5-Jamss Holford VS.. Simeon Drefous-This
action OF assumpsit on two promissory notes the
fest I'd the 18th September 1912 payable 60 lays after
date for $445O the second dated the 10th October same
year. payable so days after date $4426 The facts OF
nit England two Bills of Exchange He applied to
Mr. Isaacs bill broker in Wall street. to procure the
bills for him saacs applied to plaintiffs sgsns: ono
bills and stated to him the terms upon which the deen.
dant wished to purchase them was, the plaintiffs
own and the notesof third person collateral
curity To those terms the plaintiffs agent agreed and
the defendant gave the notes in question The defendant
pleaded the general ISSUE and under that plea the defence
Of usury was set up namely that plaintiff charged per
cent the notes. and in addition to that charged
half per cent per month, which defendants counsel
read Mr. saacs the bill broker proved the negotiation
and purchase of the bills of exchange and the consera
that bills of exchange like any other mercantile
commodity, subectto fuc.uaon and to rise and all in
the market He said that the price of bills Of exchange
of the house that drew them The plaintiffs counsel
lied that the testimony the witness took this case out
of the usury laws.
His Honor charged the jury that this action to
the amount of two promssoy notes given be de-
PENDANT to plaintiff the price of two bills Of exchange
The defendant is dealer in exchange and has house
here and branch of it in London. The defence is
usury-that plaintiff has received more than per
egn exchsng es there is medium of communication and
it to be the practice for brokers' to be the go be-
tweenhey the agents of both parties but it is to be
remarked that the agent receives his compensation from
the seller Gentlemen if party receives loan moro
than per cent by the statute Of nsury he loses the
whole of his debt interest and all The statute Of usury
is very rigid, and will all my power TO enforce It.
In every instance that any design is manifested
chnery brought into operation to elude this statute it is
the duty of courts to stop If this transaction of
loan than per cent is fraudulent and would bring
within the statute, but here is entirely different
transaction-the plaintiff is dealer in exchange and he
did il within the regular range of his business Bills
the subject Of sale like any other commodity and when
they put into the market they huctae and rise and
fall other commodities do-the bilS Of house
to be better and in demand than the bills of another
house, those circumstances take them out of the usury
laws and this rule to be founded moral obliga
tons and good sense and would be striking at the root
of all those every day transactions to break through this
rule Something has sail about this transaction
having taken place in Wall street. II it be bona ide
transaction it is matter where is DONE and although
the practice in Wall street is to ride rough shod the
laws of the land yet it's being done there does not vtate
it, therefore charge the law to be as laid down by plain
tiff counsel that half per cent is not enough to
make it usury. Verdict for plaintiff, $77Ol 81
Messrs Griffin & Ravens CONDUCTED PLAINTIFFS case;
Messrs. O'Connor Chase appeared for defendant.
Siias Wood ct alvs Alfred Taylor ct al-Ths was an
action OF assumpst promissory note made by the de-
PENDANT Taylor payable to the order OF defendant Boor
man. and by the latter passed to the plaintiffs for rent
The defendants also agreed to give the plaintiffs check
additional security for the Of the note end de-
post furniture with person to be mutually named by
the first of May next and If then not paid, the proceeds
Of the furniture to be applied in payment The check was
not paid and the furniture cannot be sold until the first OF
May Upon the latter ground the sci for the defend
ant contended that the plaintiffs had right to bring
action until after the first of May and insisted that
the uraure a off against the amount of the note
The plaintiffs counsel maintained thatthe furniture
good set off under the statute while remained un
sold. set off, he contended must be capable Of liqu
dation and conform otherwise to the statutory require
ments.
The Court charged that question of fact for the
Jury to decide what the verbal was between
somewhat contradictory. His Honor told the Jury
that the set off claimed by defendants good
available within the statute.
Verdict plaiutih for the amount claimed.