New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-10-20
liz W IN7EXLYGENCE
SCPRkME COJRT-CsA~ssss-O,r a. BeSors f.d.,


sUFREME CopRT-Css~ssss-ocr. Ia Befors JaA,.
John w. Font agt. George ki"ck. -Defeadsuvs
motion to o.. s'iae judgment srsHed 10 Of moss
TIE same ngt. tee same. - Defendants mOAsa
Besre Jua,e Ivea.H.M
R~be,ca ~ Hays agt Margaret Hsys--Motns
graz ted charge place of trial ful.on County Costs 70
SPECIAL TrRN.-Besore Judge srrur.lwn
FINANCIAL oPERATIoSs-psURY.
pofrsnc- Davis az, John Murray aud others
In this ca. the plaintiff alleged that al variess
Ii les ia ISs, he borrowed large of mInsy from
the defendant Murray. who is q well-kuown wal
stree operator tor which ln he paid thu moderate
sum- by way II interest, of25 cents the dollar taaA
such can- amounted in the aggregate to $50 90 -
PAYABLE within day after demand, OF In csrs of do
fault The lender 10 have the privilege Of selling sec r.
tics which had been LEFT as collateral that plaintiff
gave his pronissory notes for the loans aud fer c-
lateral security gave Murray 2D eight per cent bonds
of the Chicago, st. Paul ard Fond dn Lac Railroad
Company of the par value Of 600 each, and ia adj
diiin plautf also gave note for the sum OF sl5 ~
Of the Railroad Company, inorsed by W. Is. Ogiss.
Charles Butler J. w. Hickok and WIN. Jarvis, who
were officers of the Company, and alse Q note made
by the same Company and indcrssd by the same
parties fer $500; that Murray had Transferred .
large portion at the notes and bonds TO other parties
who are cu-defcniants in the suit snd that plsintd
informed and believed said ransfsrs were basc1
upon usuriuus contracts between the parties who AN
Lad knowledge OF the Injurious agreement oet~esa
plnn,'ff md Murray, and that none Of such sscar.
tiles we're held by any title paramount to that -
plaintiff
The complaint then leoiteS the VARIOUS parties -
whom the securities had been transferred and speci
fed the amounts held by them. Plaintiff further nj.
alleged that the remaining notes held by Murray had
been altered by said Murray, who had inserted ths
word after" and date after the words one day
alter demand fol the purpose ri restricting the tio
If payment to q tine subsequent to the date liked
therein and that all said notes aud bonds were givca
by plaintiff in pursuance Of such usurious c,ntracS
Plaintiff demands that Murray should be- compelled 70
denver up to Linn all the notes aud bond. in the CON-
plant described, and all such notes aud bonds given
rs colntera ard that tho other defendants should Be
compelled 10 deliver up all the notes and bonds held
by item or under their control Also thattns defend
ants be restrained from dspOsng of or negotiating any
of such notes or bonds duriog the psndency OF tho
action. -.
The defendant John Il. Murray, denies that PLAINTIFF
borrowed any Of the said moneys his own account,
and for which the notes and also the bonds ot tht Ford
du Lac Railroad Company were given IA collateral;
that all the loans were for the sole benefit of the Tile
Company; that he believed the moneys receiver BY
Davis were Immediately paid over to the Company,
AID that Davis acted agent of said Fond d1 Lac
Railroad Company. Mr. Murray also denied that the
Icons were made upon amy luxurious contract ny why %
interest and denied that he had nsfrred any at sail
securities upon any usGrious agreement with his CO.
d,ef ndarts The answer also set up that no part u
the said loans had been paid and that from the ropro-
sentations made by Davis prior 10 obi aiming the loans,
the def ndant believed that the plaintiff had right
or title to said moneys but that they belonged To tho
Railroad Company.
! The other defendants answered by denying tho
knowledge their part OF any usurions contract be-
tvs, EN- plaintiff and Murray, and for further deease
/ set up The same facts advanced by Murray.
/ The viii probably occupy the rest Of the week.
Mr.. Davis il undergoing examination in which
the whole hisory vi the Company and his connoctioo
with it viii be gone into.