The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-04-20

CIRCUIT CoURT-Chisf Justice CARTIER
This court was occupied as follows yesterday:
Ebel ys. Gray. This case occupied the
court on Friday last. II was m action Of rc-
pleyin to recover property seized In the Pres
colt House, corner Thirteenth street and
pennsylvania avenue, under q deed OF trust,
the defence being that under the act Of Con-
gress said properly was exempt from seizure.
The jury returned sealed verdict for the
plaintiff.
WHAT is UsURY IN THIS DISTRICT
Henry 3. Davis VS.. Joseph G. Lewis.
Action to recover the amount Of $500 and
Interest due on promissory note made by
one Pitcher, and Endorsed first by the de-
PENDANT and then by the plaintiff, which had
been paid by the plaintiff. A plea Of usury
was filed by defendant. Norris for plaintiff,
Mattlngly for defendant. ,.'
The court granted the following instruc-
lions to the jury; II the jury find from the
evidence that the promlssory note In the
declaration mentioned was executed by
Chas. A. Pitcher and endorsed by J. q.
Lewis, and placed In the hands of the plain
till by Pitcher TO make sale Of the same for
the benefit Of said Pitcher, and that the said
plaintiff, with view 10 effect sale of the
said note, and realize the proceeds for said
Pitcher, endorsed the same and obtained the
proceeds ct deduction Of one half of one
cent per month from the face OF the note,
and paid the same to the said Pitcher, the
plaintiff Is entitled to recover, although they
should further find that the Interest carried
on the face Of the paper, with said deduc-
ton, would amount to more than legal In
terest, unless they should further find that
the said note In Its inception was usurious.
The Court said this case raises simply
this question whether inter parties, where
two men employ third TO negotiate piec
OF paper In violation OF the usury law and
he does II Qor IL per cent. per annum Is a
violatlon) by adding his own endorsement
to It, and afterwards pays Il to the parties
who employed him as agent, should be com
PEELED to respond for the money disbursed
upon II. Their answer TO their liability Is
that the note being In violation of the usury
law, the plaintiff should have refused to pay
the note In response to his endorsement, and
that inasmuch as he would not have been
liable to pay the note himself they arc not
bound to respond to him for any payment he
made upon 1t. This makes, under the IN
structions, proper case for the court IN JdHe,
and the plaintiff can take his exceptions.
The Jury thereupon found a verdict for
the plaintiff in the full amount of the note,
and Mr.. Mattlngly gave notice Of exceptions.
George W. Riggs q Co. VS.. Keller ct al.
Action on promissory note, OF which the
defendant (keifer) was one OF the endorsers.
Keller, for defence, plead that he had been
notified according TO law of the dishonor of
the note. The evidence showed that on
protest Of the note the notary, being igno.
rant OF the residence OF Keller, made ln-
quiry of the maker of the note as to his res
idence, aud was told that he lived some
where In the direction OF Bladensburg, and
thercupon mailed notice Of the protest TO
Bladcnsburg post office, when In fact the
post Office OF Keller was at Bonneville, and
he attended Centre market as a butcher
every market day.
The Court instructed the Jury that due
diligence to ascertain residence had been
used, and the notice was sufficient. The
Jury thereupon found for the plaintiff.
John Chandler Smith VS.. Mary Ann
Paul. Ejectment to recover certain real cs
tate In Georgetown, which both parties
claim. This is the second trial of the same
subJect-matter, the first having been de-
termined for tho defendant. The merits of
the case were reported on the former trial
The case was not concluded when the court
adjourned.
Bastable q Co. VS.. HeIskell. Judgment
for plaintiff by consent.
Trust Il Hahn VS.. Sears. Judgment for
shriels h Co. vs.. swceuy. Same judy
ment.
Baker VS.. Edes q Beck. Same Judgment
Smith vs.. Randall-samc Judgment.
Bennett VS.. Clagctt-judgmcnt for plant.
III, credit Of $40 on the note being allowed.
statt VS.. Fowler; Fuller vs.. Albcrt--both
cases continued.
CASES TO DAY.
The following cases arc set for to-day
Nos. ll5, 1lG, 267, 27s, $40, 3l2, 1913, 3ii, |
III, $50, $50, 1888, IA, 1888, 1865, 240 PSI, 1856,
432, 101, 1888, 200, 800, 81, 1903, AL, 4I3, 203,
go, l76, III, 1888, 1876, 1893, 100, and appeals, |
60, 6S, !, Is, 40, 20, 81, .. 4, and 7.
Saturday next will be devoted to the call |
of the appeal calendar.
Adjourned.