The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-12-07
Marine Court.

BEFORE Hon. Judge Mccarthy and Jury.
A CURIOUS Monty NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. or A
NoTH--ALLEGED UsuRY-HARD TIMDS--vERDICr
FOR THE fLAISTIRF.
DEc e.-Georpe H. Purser ~. abraham Hatfield and
james r Be,rins-Ths action brought to
the OF promssory note for $500, dated June
1854 at three mouths made by Walmsley, Haight Il
Co.. 70 the order Of the defendants and endorsed in their
copartnership of Hatfield 4 Berthe, which
protested for non-payment. The defendant, Hatfield
resides in Westchester county and not to have
had any personal with the transaction. The de-
PENDANT Berthe, who lives in this city, in Court
with his counselduring the trial The defence stated
by the counsel for the defendant four fold-1st
That the defendants not coparners ID That the
endorsement not in the handwriting Of either Of
them 3D. That the note had not been duly protested
and 4th. That the note passed upon usurous
contract, and was, therefore, void.
On the part Of the plaintiff Mr.. John B. Haskn
called witness, and testified that he knew the de-
PENDANTS that they formerly copartners in bust
under the firm Of Hatfield and Berthe, and,
as he believed still were and that within the three
months he had heard each of said defendants say that
they copartners.
John Cote the paying teller OF the Butchers and
Droyers' Bank testified that the defendants had for
several years kept account copartners in that
bank, aud still had account there, and balance to
their credit, though for the last six months
year the account had ceased to be active one.
lie also testified that be had paid numerous checks Of
Hatfield ana Bertine signed BY Mr. Bertine and knew
his handwriting; that the endorsement the note IN
suit in the handwriting of Mr.. Berthe, he be-
eved and that he would pay check with that sigma
ture.
Robert Buck paying teller Of the Pacific Bank, testi-
fed that he formerly for several years bookkeep
err in the Butchers and Droyers Bank and had kept the
account Of the defendants with that bank that he
intimate with Bertine had him write from TWEEN
to fifty times, and had frequently paid checks drawn by
him. and had doubt that the endorsement of the
of Hatfield 4 Berthe was i'll Bertne's handwriting.
Samuel Brown notary, testified that on Saturday,
to the makers and demanded payment, which
fused, and that on the following Monday he served
tice Of protest by depostng the same in the New York
Post Oce directed 10 the defendants at Westchester
in the county Of Westcheser that being the place of
sidence of Mr.. Hatfield, and subsequently, when he
notice at his hous, in Forty second street.
The note then read in evidence, and the plaintiffs
counse-Mr. !. B. Shepard, District Attorney-havng
rested, the defendants counsel-Mr Richard Busted
moved for nonsuit, which denied.
Robert Wamsley testified, on the part of the defend
Haight Co., and had made and signed the
note in question That il was endorsed by Mr.
the Of the Makers and %as then re
turned to them that in February last Wan,sey Haght
Co. had executed a mortgage to Hatfield Berthe,
upon their line Of omnbuses and horses &c, to iniem
nifty them for endorsing their notes to the amount of
81 1900, and that note for $500 endorsed by thcm,
being about 10 become due the note In question was
made and endorsed, to enable the makers raise ,ney
and take the said former note He further testified
that he delivered the note to Mr. G. s. Delayan broker
with instructions to sell the and that day two
thereafter Mr. Delavan gave him $3.50, which all he
had ever received for the note. He said that this de-
against his will
The plaintiffs counsel upon crossesaminatcn of this
witness, produced and showed TO him o certificate in
writing, signed walmsley, Haight Co., stating that
this note business note, given for valuable
sderation and that would be promptly paid at matu
rity, which the witness stated in his handwriting
signed by him. and delivered BY him TO Mr. Delavan, be-
fore the sale Of the note.
Mr. Purscr the plaintiff, then called IS witness
for the defendants and testified that he had purchased
the note in question from Mr.. Delavan, q day two
after It's dste Tor s47o which he paid by check to the
ordar IF Mr. naIa hat Ia hadr Had
and offered the note, stating the terms ut which he
would sell it, and that the note being accompanied WITH
having attached to it, the certificate Of the makers
that It was business note, and knowing Hatfield
Berthe, whose behalf he supposed Mr. Delavan
acting to be responsible men, he took 1t upon the terms
offered by Deavan He also testified that after the note
became due, he Mr. Berthe, who requested him to
the makers instead Of the endorsers and said that
On his getting verdict against them, he would pay the
note, as he amply secured by mortgage.
Christian s. Della van another witness for the iefen
dants, then testified that the note in question was
business note that the note and certificate left
his office in velope during his temporary absence
and that he had direct personal knowledge who left
it, that he met the plaintiff in the Park and offered to
sell him the note at two per cent per MONTH and that
the plaintiff bought it at that price and paid him in his
to Mr. walmsey sa5o: that he did not tell waimsoy to
whom he had sold the note or at what price, that he
shortly after Mr. Berthe, and told him that this
note had been given him TO negotiate, when Mr. Berthe
said it all right; that he held mortgage pro-
perry worth some $4,000 as security, and fully in
IDENTIFIED for his endorsement.
Amos +. Hatfield ior the plaintiff testified that he is
brother Of Mr.. Hatfield Of the firm of Hatfield Ber
tne that the defendants are partners that he the wit
ness, is director in the Pacific Bank, and that of
the batch of notes for ~ 500 made by Walmsley Haigh
Co.. and endorsed by Hatfield Berthe, offered in
that bank for discount that he spoke Berthe about
it. and Berthe said il all right and that they
ndemni6ed for their endorsement by mortgage the
line Of stages belonging to walmsley aisht Co.. that
he had spoken to his brother about this note and asked
II he intended to interpose the defence Of usury and
that he replied that he did not and that he would have
nothing to do with such defence, but that Berthe said
their hands we're tied.
Verdict for plaintiff for $500 the amount OF the sote
without interest