The national Republican., 1867-07-31

count Of sales reported By rsesivsr and rsfsrrsd
TO auditor for settlemsnt This Il the case, re-
ported some time since, involving contest Of
two brothers (asrmans,) In relation 70 the furni.
| ture Of restaurant. ~
sls. Power q 81. 70. Power saii for psrti.
tion and reference 70 auditor 70 decide n the
estate can be Divided as \ stands, Of should be
sold and the proceeds divided. "
The court then adjourned.
TUESDAY.
The Court opened yesterday at 10 o'clock, and
transacted the following business >.
e97. r. p. Dodge and a. II. Mcclellan W.
James p. Gregory Of al This is an application
for an injunction 10 restrain the sale Of certain
real estate In this city under deed Of trust from
Morgan a Rhinehart. II has already been onos
before the court aud summary Of the case was
at that timo published In the RsruBLfcANl II
involves q contest over the assets Of Morgan a
Rhinehart, between William Clarke. who claims
. prior Hen, and the other creditors Of the hrrn,
who claim under q general assignment 10 the
plaintiffs In this cause. Tho application before
the court Is for temporary injunction to restrain
the sale Of the real estate Of the hrm, advertised
TO take place to.day--for the benefit Of Clarke in
exclusion Of the other creditors. The othor
creditors claim that tho rate Of s26, 600 under
the deed 10 secure which the sale IL advertised,
was given without consideration, and is void
Mr.. Clarke and Mr.. Fuller, the defendants. an
swer that tho debt Is bona fde, being In great
part the purchase. money Of two steamers pur
chased BY Morgan Rhinchnrt Of Fuller.
The Court thought that was nothing in this
case TO justify the chancellor in interfering with
the position In which the parties had placed
themselves In their own contract. The bill al.
legged that the consideration OF the note was o
loan 10 DO obtained, but which In fact never was
obtained. The answers set forth that the note
r. l.ll Al ]. Il. l.ll
that whore the answer denied the equity Of the
bill no injunction could bo granted for this case,
therefore the prayer for injunction must bc re-
fused.
Patrick Byrne VS.. II. J. Davis. This is q bill
fled Deo IA, 1864, to recover 81, 500 paid by
complainant to respondent rs usurian's interest.
II sets forth that complainant gave deed for
property In Square 454 to Mohup, who there.
upon executed to Byrne two notes OF o., $50, and
secured tho same BY deed upon the property.
These rates were accommodation rates for tho
benefit Of Byrne, and by him indorsed 10 and
"done " by tho Savings Bank Of Washington.
Not being paid at maturity, Judgment was oh.
tanned thereon.
Afterwards this judgment was assigned to
Davis, and, in order TO induce Davis TO forbear
enforcing tho Judgment, Byrne agreed to pay
him ono and half per cent per month, and did
At various times pay him sums Of money vary
ing from forty TO one hundred dollars q month;
and finally, In 1864, settled all that remained
due. The plaintiff contends that tho original
debt was but 81, 2oa .os, and the interest thereon
for three years and nine months, would make II
but S2,698.77; whereas the plaintiff has paid
s3,s93o4, being Sl,19427 more than debt and
legal interest, and therefore usury. It Is this
latter sum the plaintiff sues 10 recover.
Tho answer OF the defendant admits that the
transactions are substantially rs stated, but
AYERS that Byrne always represented Mohun as
the bona nde purchaser Of his property, and these
rates, as given for the purchase money. Tho
forbearance Of the plaintiff, who might have sold
the incumbersd property two years ago, has ena.
bled the plaintiff to keep the property In bis own
hands during that time, during which II advanced
In value from 81, 900 to $1,000.
Mr.. Brent oontended the right to recover back
money paid Is usurious interest, either at law or
equity, was laid down by English jurists over q
century ago, and fully sustained BY tho current
Of American decisions, The maxim Holenti non
ft tnynrta did not apply to this case. To sup.
port this Wow. he cited cases temps TalbAt, 3s;
Amber, 372j Douglas, 69s. Even though the
illegal interest had been paid In pursuance Of
legal proceedings where the parties might have
made this defenoe-the Illegal interest might bo
recovered. In support he quoted Yerger, 563.
and Sd Mttell (Ky.) Reports, l13.
Mr.. Cox said this was the frst case In which
he ever know usurious interest once paid, will.
iugly, to be reclaimed. Mr. Byrne did not come
into court with clean hands; ho had frnudulently
represented Mohun as the debtor, and owner Of
the property, and himself as endorser only. The
right TO purchase bona fde note In the market,
At any, price, Is undoubted, Suppose that whom
Davis bought thsse notes Of the bank II would
not sell less than par, when he was willing to
pay but 80 cents. But Byrne says, you buy,
and III make up the 20 per cent Had he paid
II, no one would contend that he could recover
II back. But what difference does II make II,
instead Of q payment In gross, the amount was
paid In monthly instalments or in tho shspe Of
INTEREST,"
Hersths case was adjourned until to-day.
1853. Frances Hawkins vs. John L. Hawkins.
This 10 the divorce case which has excited
considerable attention in this city. An ipjunc-
tion had been granted by Judge Wiley, some
time since, restraining Hawkins from interfering
with the store on the corner Of + and Thir-
teenth streets, kept by his wifo. On yesterday,
however, when Judge Cartier refused the dc.
cree Of divorce asked by Mrs. Hawkins, he dis.
solved the injunction as to the store.
Mr.. Fendall, however, prayed an appeal,
which was granted and the legal operation Of
an appeal Is to keep matters In their present
position until further order Of the court.
In thi. case Yesterday Mrs Hawkins filed
her petition, stating that ut o'clock on Mon.
day afternoon Hawkins came to tho store, cor.
ner Of Thirteenth and F streets, with his son
and two officers, and taking her by the neck
foreibly put her out Of doors. She prays tho
protection Of the court; and, on the motion Of
Mr. Fendall. q rule was made directing Haw.
kins to appear to-day to show cause why attach.
ment should mott issue against him for contempt.
756. Strause vs.. Levy OF al Order Of publ.
cation as to absent defendants.
10l2 Pierce VS.. Hall OF al. Order Of publca-
tion against absent defendants.
1888, Cruchott vs.. Flagg Order appointing
N. Callan special examiner to take testimony In
this case.
Mr.. Dayidge, in a feeling manner, announced
the death OF Z. O. Morgan, esq, q member Of
the bar Of this court, and on his motion tho
court, as mark Of respect to tho memory Of
the deceased, adjourned.
ORPHANS CoURr-Judge PurceH.-The
court met rs usual at noon yesterday, and trans
acted the following business:
The last will and testament Of Letitia 6peake,
made September TO- 1859. and witnessed by Jas.
L. Ia N Il Tt n.Nn