The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-03-13
Common Pleas
Dc Hn-. lnA ITIsh a.

March 7.-ROyal Staug hfon Us. Robert Jonss-This
Of James Jones Co. fer 81 $780, and endorsed by the
defendant The note in question was given by James
ney on it. McMillen gave IL to Charles BurriI Who
passed 1t to the plaintiff The signatures Of maker
and eneorser were proved and the plaintiff restsd-
time in lS47, James Jones Co.. who then In the
African trade had occasion for Q large advance Of
they made four notes. amounting In the aggregate
about ~ Gee and procured the defendant to endorse
them there four notes were given to % III. who
notes, ana paid 1t over to Jones Co three Of them,
amounting to sel26, were paid when they arrived ct
or about that sum remained unpaid, although 1t ma
tured before or two Of those that taken up
Co. up ns. on Of
notes, and alec 70 kneS how they were disposed Of,
and in whose hands they were which information WAS
legged that having received only $4,000, and having
paid the Interest that accrued the loan was
In December, is47, James Jones Co. had occasion
for further loan, made the note In suit procured 1t
to be endorsed by defendant, and gave It to McMisn
latter sppsdit to the pay and released to
advance any money IT, and afterwards, but before
this state Of facts. ths insisted the pIain
tit could not because tho note In suit
an Tor .nsa ne 10
purposes for which 1t was given thirdly thst the ORR
gnsl transaction tainted with usury and that II
1868 note, 1t must be taken part Of the original
transaction, and also tainted with usury His Honor
James Jones 4 Co., in Dsosmbsr, 1s47, psysbe to R.
Jones' the defendant, for 81 500 and endorsed BY him
When fell due It was duly protested, and now to-
now said he, called upon to decide whether the
plaint is to this smount from the defendant
ofustioe with negotiable pieces Of paper in his posses
sion, he Is presumed to be entitled to recover
| hora At Ia "a Hor
tilted by como evidence. A witness has proved that
at the time the note fell due, he deposited It in bank
1t to him day or two before 1t natured, under
standing that there might be some difnculty abou,
obliges the defendant to make out his Defence an
unless he does 20, plaintiff has right to recover In
this case 1t Is necessary that the makes out
Two points to your estsfaction First that the note
suit was an accommodation note and that was mis-
applied or, in other VERDE that it handed by Mo-
Mllen to Burril without authority and without con
sideration; defendant has succeeded In making out
those points then his defence IL proved
that u.s. be has shown you satia.e tory that he
mere accommodation enderser and that the note was
msapped then the law calls upon tho plaintiff to es.
tabsh his title and show that he was bona de holder
value and without notice Of fraud 1t is not enough
for plaintiff In euch case, to show that he paid
confederation before the mote fell due for pan not
ton II he las notice Of the grounds Of defence II he
has such notice, the note In his hands liable to the
same objections - 1t would be in the hands of the
original psrty Gentlemen, will here remark TO Won
that in rome Cafes note. In the hands of bona
fde holder and without notice. be recovered n
II be void by law for instance, II note was stolsn
and afterwards passed away for valuable
and without notice to the holder 1t WAS void by
tho laws Of usury In other words where the law
the instrument Is void, you take It at your rick
and must look to the msu from whom you took It, In
the next place. will remark to you, that usury Is to
be BY proof not TO be guided by the
custom OF Wall street or by the custem Of
man may be in the habit Of charging above per Goa
10 questioned for usury IL mut DO shswn by tho evi-
deDce In the case. In the next place, will remark
that II usurous note s given, which 10 not paid
msturity and new note 10 given, the new note IL
tainted ~ we'll ~ the old; for n there faint In
the hrrt 1t continues In the second The parties how
ever might get together and agree to purify the old
Transaction from usury; in sucn en- event. the new
note wsuld be good and could be recovered. A far
- understand the testimony there Ia witness In
this that the note In suit given to
the note for 81 $685. which is alleged TO b tainted
with usury you will therefore that this turns
on the fact whether Burril authorized to neRo-
tiae the note to plaintiff for the Of Jones Co..
mott II he was authorized, and the plaintiff honestly
advanced his money before the nots was due, he IL
entitled 10 recover upon 1t His Honor next called the
attention Of the jury to the testimony In the cause,
an told them they to decide from t whether the
plaintiff had made out his not. The jury found
aNsrdictf for the defendant.
simon W. Bliss cs. Vim and John Dram This
an action brought sgainst the defendants father aad
SOD, Tor @fault and battery. There no appear.
apce for the defendants The Jury found a verdict
for the plaintiff, for $50 damages
H. -