The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-01-11
Superior Court.


JAN. e-.andrsw Pii"oi aud .adoiphus "A l.
I3u, s,er "a Henry D Dordea-Tbts was al action on
bill Of exchange for SO 900 IL VAS drawn oy tne DE-
feud mt no Florida Heckscoer& Coster.
of this CITY in lS4t and r-mtted to person named
Clark The latter put it into the hands of MIR Oddly,
who applied to the plaintiffs to di'count They said
no: but offered TO give bill house in France for
it. Oddly sgIeed; and they gave him bill on their
cnrerpor mt IN Havre taking on the discount, ana
charging ST 22j.c per cent in addition The bill was
drhonored and the plaintiffs now seek 20 charge the
drawer The fret defence set up was usury next
and lastly, that notice OF non acceptance vas
not given to the defendants, 1t appearing that
Heckscher Costsr woud not accept the bill when
IL was first presented although they ultimately did
The defe ndant thowed that the day OF the trans
action between Oddly and the plaintiffs, the exchange
on France wae franc. 30 csntimes which Oddly paid
on selling the bill on France ana that the difference
between this and the francs 22H ceutiues was
charge Of and three quarters per cent over aud
above the legal interest and as the bill Of exchs nge
drawn by defendant on Heckscher Coster was an
accommodation transaction. it was clearly u'urious
The plaintiffs council INFESTED that when the orawee
accepts bill OF exchange the legal presumption Is,
that he has fumes belonging to the drawer in his hands
to meet it, otherwi,e be would not accept and there
being proof In this TO the rsry it be
taken concs ded that he had In that view IL could
not be considered an accommodation transaction be.
tween the drawer and drawee and. therefore, not
within the statute Of usury bill Of exchange when
accepted, 10 like any other arlcle Of the
party buying 1t was at liberty give ,te or Is
much he pleased for IL In regard 10 other d-e
It shown that Clark tn. AGENT Of the defe
lad notice OF ell the facts and circumstances con.
bill and that defe ndsnt must be deemed to have notice
through him The jury found verdict for the plain
IFS for 81, 800 ~.
Before Chief Justice Oakley.
JAN 10 -Safft,iss rs, Dibe. and Others Thiswas an
action to $2o It appeared the def pdants
three of the commute Of soci-ty called the HOLLAND
Protective EDigrsDt Society resolved get co nc.r,
TO be neht the objects Of the society and employed
person Damed Lod.r 10 manage ana get It up Lod.r
employed musicians about eight or ten in numb-r;
and the concert ct at the Taoer nacie, In
last, and turbsd out failure not having producsd
more than paid for The la which IL held The
mustcisns afterwards s,signsd their csims to the
plaintiff and he seeks to recover against the de-
fepdsnts as the persons wbo en- ployed Mr. Loder to
conduct the concert The defence tech meal ADD
the Judge directed he jury to hnd for the plaintiffs
Verdict accordingly for Slt0
The P,esidsnt ~ The S,uenth Ward Bank ". c Car
pefsr was an action for recovery Of $3.50 rs
IL appeared the defe ndapt k.pt an AMOUNT In
the bank In 1S43 the 20 and Sd OF that mo tn he
drew 1t by Of $5s8 % He after cards osd
900 on account. The Ju'y found a verdict for this
plaintiff for $3.50 rs, and interest that SUN from
3D. December, 1913
Wm G. 0psenbu,y VS. The Mayor. &c of New York.
The jury fouha averdict In b for the al
Of $780,