The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-03-26
Luw IuteIiIYeucc.

CTacUIT CouRT, March rs Bsore Judge Eimonds -
Corsers. Chester g. Go This cause, which report
I'd yesterday, summed up this afternoon. His Honor
charged the jury that the parties having avsed them
selves Of the statute which gave them right coll
William Chester ono Of the drfepdsrts TO tc.iiiy in
this yet that his evidence Only bs in
support of ths defence set up by the ober deepdan's
any defence set by himself must be fus.ened bY oh
testimony. The defence Ia three fold First i. is
contended that this Is communication draft given to
take up former one It was taken ro person named
Ray, and by him discounted The next defence i that
it was given by w w Chester without the knowledge
parties no. bound. Tbs third defence Ia usry In
regard 10 the first defence, where accommodation is
s r.,tv rec,";np Il ss s'r a,vss.a from
the purpose for which 1t given that his gives
value for IT, then in either OF such the acceptor
would not be lsbe bat II nm accommodation note or
an acceptance gsts into the hands Of party without
notice and he gives fail consideration fer IT, No is
bona ide holder aud in such he il entitled TO
against the mixer nccptor That principle of
law is well settled, md has b,en established f,r the
purpose OF eneoursgipg commerce. and p,o'oc,,as
o,hsr With regard to the next deience, that the
draft wes not given for parnsrship purposes, aud
with the assent of The other parties the rule OF law
upon that defence Is tht that each partner scent fr
the Others in all matters within the scope Oh the part
nsrship business, and binds the nrm on partnership
contract In this case 1t IS moi pretended that this &c
ceptance given for psrtnershp business IL IA al
nitted that was given by Gao Of the partners Tor tne
scconmo dstion OF his nephew and IL 1t went into thc
hands Of any one, with know.edsc CT that fact, lie
cannot recover bat 1t has got into the hands of tho
plaintiff as Iona Gde holder without knowledge OF the
circuns snces under which II given, he Is ebtted
to recover Therefore. the first question you have TO
consider Is Is the plaintiff bcao de holder and did be
take this acceptance without notice IL you OF
opinion that he f. and took It without notice, the part
nersbip liable or II the oher partners afterwards
as,ented they would DO liable nnd Is rot necessary
to prove an express assent It ia sufficient prove that
there were circumstance to show that they did after
wards assent to It, Ths next ground OF defence a. that
it was uurious In this It IL important consdr
whether II an accornmoda ION scceptanes net IL
no. 10 never had any existence bludng CONTRACT un-
III Il negotiated by Mr.. w. w Chester ana then
the question presents s,f ths acceptance in the
hands of Mr.. w. W. Cbsnter such ins 'rumsnt he
could recover on against the acoepors Ifpo1fing
crptsnce which he could not enforcs Rg nst Wiliam
III. Chester Co In regard 10 the question OF usary,
tbs rule OF law s that the rate OF nerss Is per
cent any contract whore IL reserved u void no
ntter what subte'fage may DO rssor,ed to- in order
avoid the ute II more than PER cent IN taken,
" will vct the contract Under all the circumstances
" Is for You to whether tho defendants have
tainsd their defsncs, SO.
sUrERIoa CouRr, March 25.--In Banoo Il ecisions--