The New York herald., 1870-01-21
SUPERIOR COuRT-ssHERA TERM.
Gold Mining Observation-Disclosures Opiui on.
Before Judge McCunn.

Gold Mining Operatiou-Important Opinion.
Before Judge McCunn.
TITUS B. EzdrtdOe Us. Samuel c. Reed.-The particu.
lars OF this case were some time presented the
readers OF the HERALD. The memory will be best
drawn pack to them by the suboined opinion of
Judge McCunn, before whom the case was tried
The facts OF this case according to Mr.. Reeds the
defendants) testimony, are nearly as fOllows:-ln
1867 during the time OF great mania for gold min
Ing and other worthless stock speculatOns gentle
man by the name Of Mckinney, a personal friend OF
the defendant, applied to him ana desired that he
MI. Recd should aid in giving life the stock OF The
he had no money, but finally agreed to give and ala
give his two notes al short runs for $500 eacn and
for which he received 800 shares OF the company's
stock. at So rs per share. The notes gwen and
the stock was transferred by the following receipt
given at the ume:-
Received from Samuel 9. Reed, Esq, his note, JAN
forty days date to order q pa; A.
thirty days date, order OF A. Mckinney $500
with ioo shares Of the Hardware Bolt, Spike and Rves
Company as for o9 shares q the
70 be held with The balance of the capital stock Ia the hands
per assakG hAsSus ssS%klEsSEk, %AEkEk.,
NEW YORK, Jan. 6, 1907.
The stock was left by Mr. Reed with Mr.. Walker,
who was entrusted with the scheme, ana who was
forming the corner. From the testimony of Mr..
Reed 1t would appear that the 1000 shares were
taken by Mr.. Reed and were left In Walkers hands,
and, with his consent and knowledge, the entire
him put upon the market. Fictitious sales were
made wash sales, as they are caled). AT last the
scheme collapsed and MIR. Reed was called upon to
nay the notes. Mr.. Reed now says that he was
frauduently induced by Mr.. Mckinney to enter into
the TRANSACTION; that the whole thing was tainted
with fraud from the start, and that the sixtyslx
dollars allowed Eldrdge was usurous charge;
therefore he Mr. Eldrldge cannot recover in this
ton, We fail to see 1t In that light We regard
the whole scheme as one entered into by reckless
men for the purpose or acquiring speedy fortunes
Mt the expense of easily deceived public, and that
Mr. Reed the defendant is as little to be ptied as
any OF those connected with the affair. We ARE OF
opinion that the sixty.slX dollars charged by Mr..
Eldrldge was fair and proper charge, ana was not
IN any sense or the word usurous. Eldrldge teshes
that he advanced the whole apount OF the notes,
and that Wolcott gave hlm back this sum to cover
his expenses In searching Wolcott corrODorAtes
tins fully his testimony taken at Boston, and this
keeping by Mr. Eldridge OF the slxty-six dollars was
mos TO cover his expenses and that In law
he was not entitled TO retain that sum
that tdoing 80 was q usurious act-thls Will nos
taint the original transaction. III the renewal Is
given In part for valid debt, that portion OF the
debt mean the valid portlonl Is not destroyed by
ustry In the new security (Hamman vs. Hopping, IL
Wen., sos; Swartwout Pain, 10 Johnson 294; Bush
VI. Livingston 2 Cal Cases, 66.) Indeed, the book
abounds with cases to this point, SO much so that
tine principle is now almost elementary. TO enable
o party to avail himself OF such q defence ne must
show presumptivcly, At least, the usurlOus intent.
because usury consists In the corrupt bargain be-
tween the parties by which more than lawful inte
rest Is to DO paid. tNerril8 VI. Law, 10 C0wen 80
$omray w. AnswoItb ~ BARD. lls) Tne su'