Wilmington daily gazette., 1873-05-29
CoURr eRooaRolMas.
+ INV d.kr.rIAiay' "a. Il

On motion bR O. D. tots, ESQ ,the Court grant
aAR rub 10 show cause SC. why a writ Of possess
sieh 6h5hld not bO issued in the case Of Jacob
Kezsar ct al. vs. Margaret Cannon. AZ h. sg
At ll1S A. NJ. the jury in The case OF James
Cleaden vs. James Webb, who were out all night,
sent dOwn apequest 20 the cDuFe 70 discharge them
a. they could not agree. This the c0uFt refused to
do, and q 7. NJ, they brbaght in verdict tori
the defendant l. ,.s1tl..r .ss.st a "a
/. Tho case Of Archibald Given Va. Patrick Dinon,
which ,was Qpeppd yesterday was continued this
morning VIids Il an action Of assumpsIt on
promsssOfV note iOy 5000, rs was stated, in the
court proceedinRs of yesterday; the defence %
GhiehlWts that the note was an accommodation
one, ,s.nade solely for the accommodation Of LOWS
& Son, ane-was by them discoanted ~ usGriOas
raies Of interest. .og5Q 1atHgtl 60 !,
James Lewis was called BY lho defendant aud
swori on the Were dire. Ha. Was- asked by Mr..
Whiteley, counsel for the Plainill whether Be tOhi
ueOrge $. Grubb, the broker WtO had the note
discounted that this was business paper The
object ofths question was, IL answered in the af-
trmative, to exclude Lewis from NOW being Wit
ness TO iAlpeach thesn6te. AZ. Bsies, counsel fOr
detcndant objected, and after ap argument to the
Court by M FWhitsley fcE, and Mr. Bates against
the exaTainaton ON the Were dire, the Court su.
tained dafendants 0biectiD stating the fact sh0nd
bs brought out in the examination in chief and s
matter 70 affect the wtnesses' crediblty. To this
ruling Of the Court plaintiff excepted, s. ..s
Lewis was then sworn Rs u WitIesa in ohlef.--
His admassibilitY was Obleotod 10 by. counsel for
plaintiff on the gronAd OF IneOmptsney, for the
same reasons as were adduced in the slrRnment ia
the case Of Cleaden vs.. Webb. The court over
ruled the objection. To which eKoepliens were Ia
ken by plaintiff. LA the case OF Cleaden We.
Webb, lnwis was the maker OF the VOTE aud was
called TO prove that IL discounted a. usurious
Tatae sud that Webb was an accommodation en-
d0Tsee. In this case be was one of the payoes
aud endoFsers, and called 70 prove that Dillon
the maker, was an accommodation, makOr and
that the note was discounted at usuFious rates r.
the testimony OF Lewis was that Dillon signed
this note Tor the accommodation Of Lewis g. Son,
at their request, tnat no compensation was made
10 Dillon Tor this that lie received no value for
the note, and that there was no unsettled account
between Dilonnnd Lewis & Son, for the wear
1870 That he (LeWIs) enclosed the note in an
envelope aud sent It to Geo. s. -Grnbb to RAISE
money on 1t, aud that the note was discounted at
not less than 21z per cent. per month besides the
additional charge of brokerage of per cent. Wit
aess stated that B. q. PSaFce, who discounted the
note, never made any positive demand on him for
the payment OF It. but expressed ths wish, the
note might be settled.
On tho cross-examihAtion, when asked by
plaintiffs counsel. "Did you not state 70 George
0rubb, tho broker, on the occasion OF negotiation
Of note, and before you received the money it was
businOss paper, or given by Dillon 10 you as an
IndebtedHess for brick ?" Witness answered
ii have no recollection OF It."
b. O. Poarce was called for defendant (qiVen
the plaintiff obtained the note from Pearcsl t0sti-
| lied to having bought the nOte froln Grubb Told
him at frat he WOnld. not take the note unlaaa
there was an endOrser on it, and he believed it
was q borrOW6d note. Grub went Out of his
lteaTce s. store and shortly returned and said TO
me, Lewis had told him most positively that It
was q business note given for bricks to buIld .
certain row OF houses.
George s. GEubb was called by plaintiff and
proved also what Pearce had testified to.
| B. Q. Pcarce was recalled as Q witness for
plaintiff defendant objected on the ground Of i'm
teTest. The objection was sustained by the court
to which ruling counsel for plaintiff accspetd
Robert ii. Jones was examined by plaintiff. He
i had conversation with Dillon between Oct 3Oth
and Nov. llth, 1871. Dillon stated there was an
unsettled account between him and Lewis He
said there were notes outstanding given by him 70
Lewis to the amount Of 5000, but he did not owe
LsviS 4 Son as much a. the notes amounted to.
1 II Lewis wOnld present his bill he would pay these
notes.
1 MF. WhiteIey made the opening argument to
the Court and Jury, and after dinner was followed
BY George II. Bates, Esq., who consumed the al
tsrnoOn in n laW argument to the Court, In which
he cited very many decisions Of reported cases
Mr.. Bates cOntslided that this note was negotiated
between Grabb and Pearce at uSurOus rates. This
i was the inception of the note it was then void
And was void IN WhOsOsver hands Il afterwards
4 migbt cOno..
Considering Il as an accommodation nota. itl
negotiation by Lewis & Son was usurious in il,
inception, ana Pearco could not recover on it. MOI
could Given. he had taken IL without value oI
q, notice. For Il the jury think Given was not ar
innocent holder, he stands in tho Same right a
| PeArce. %
The true test Of what an accommodation not,
IS, whether it was given for value and was valiC
when the party took It and Whsther he eouIe
maintain an action upoRit That where the pIel
alleges the illegaty Of tue note-as in this case
tit is shown by the defendant that the note va
void IN Its inception, then the burden of proyin,
that the sndoEsee toOk IL without notice. s throw
upon the plaintiff. which was not proved in thi
case. Before Ar. Bates had concluded his aTgu
msnt the Court adjourned tan tO-morroW mOtninl
NJ ~ oeocK- ...is.s.- ?, lassis ra-.l =