The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-12-02

s-t 1aAso ooAt AaASohys
Adjourned.
CRcuIr CoURr - Judge Cartier. - This
court was occupied as follows yesterday;
A PLHAo OF UsURI.
Bliss vs. Davis. This 10 an action Of as
sumpsit, brough by the second sndorser Of
note for $500, against the nrst sndorser.
The defendant plead usury, showed In
evidence that tho note In Its inception was
usurious, and produced evidence intended
10 show, by circumstances surrounding the
Transaction, that the plaintiff knew Of tho
usury. Tho plaintiff, in rebuttal, brought
evidence that previous to his endorsement Of
the note, both maker and second endorser
had assured him that tho noto was .
good one and would DO paid.
The cass was argued BY Norris for plain
tlf, and Mattingly for defendant.
Judge Cartier said that this was IN action
upon note Of hand for $500, Of which the
plaintiff 10 second endorser. The plalutlf
claims that the note entities him 10 q judy
ment, he having, as endorser, taken II up
and instituted suit against his previous en-
dorssr. Under ordinary circumstances he
would DO entitled to recover. But the de-
PENDANT inalsts that the instrument was con-
ceived In usury, as between the maker, the
payeo and tho first endorser, and therefore
that II does not impart O promise to pay
uHuUf Tue law WHICH COuiba uOWu " uh iOui
the seventeenth century. IL 10 very severe
statute, forfelting not only tho interest, but
the principal, also; and thus 1t 10 penal
statute. But such is the law, aud tho ad-
ministrAtors Of the law must enforce II.
But II is not case to DO presumed; II must
DO proved. Il IL the duty OF the Jury 10 say
whether such proof has been made; 1t Is the
duty Of the court to say that no usury ap-
peared on the faco Of the paper. II the pspor
was TO be impeached, 1t must DO impeschod
by evidence Independent OF the paper Itself.
e, II 10 claimed by the plaintiff that when
this paper was put upon the market he ad-
vised with both the maker and tho payee,
and was notified by both that this was a
genuine paper, and would DO promptly paid
on maturity. This Is what they claim to
have proved.
II 10 claimed by tho defendant that tho
paper was not conceived In usury; that 1t
was incomplete when II made its appearance
TO the plaintiff, (the second cndorser,) when
his endorsement was sought TO give the
paper currency at bank for discount. This
was also fact for the Jury to decide upon.
They could decide whether the mere fact OF
this man putting his name on II to give II
value In bank was evidence that he knew OF
the vice that tainted the paper.
Upon the case being submitted to the Jury,
who found for the plaintiff In $500, Mr..
Asttingly moved for now trial on eKcep-
lions.
Quick ys. The Corporation Of Washing.
ton. Action Of assumpslt on q contract.
The Jury found for the plaintiff In $lS,429,
with Interest.
Wand VI. Bird. In this case there had been
Judgment by default, and upon the jury bo-
Ing sworn to ascertain In what amount the
judgusnt should be, they found for the plain
TIL In $500. 80 with Interest.
Alex. Ray vs.. ]. r. Dcctcr. Action for
slS3 for the hire Of a pile-driver; verdict for
the plaintiff In the amount claimed.
Frizzell vs.. Richie. Order postponlng the
case at defendant's costs until the 18th in-
slant.
Oaksmlth's Trustee Va. Wilson. Amended
declaration flled.
Forest W. Klmmell. Action OF repleviu;
verdict for plaintiff with nominal damages.
Tho following case was contiudedi Bliss vs..
Snow & Coylc.
CASES TO-DAY.
The following numbered cases are asslg ned
for to-day, Nos. 1870, 1853, 372, 1873, 1876, 10l,
100, 1876, 1906, 1877, 1879, 900, 20l, 202, oO3, 20I
2os, 2ll, 2l2, 2l3, 214, and 2l5.
Adjourned.