Middletown transcript., 1873-06-07
Local aud State Affairs.
Proceedings Of Court.

Ion. on trial on Wednesday the counsel tor the
defence, Mr.. Geo II. Bates made the following
additional point as further defence
That II q note valued In its inception be
transferred upon general Endorsement at a
rate OF more than legal interest. 1t is contract
for usurious loan 10 the indurEer and not
sale Of the Bo,e "a, an endorsee cannot recover
upon through such Endorsement" This
making the fourth point Of his defence 20 the
law governing this case. he then cited many
authorities In supper, OF them and argued ii a, .
length. mp to the hour of noon recess. after I
which Mr.. liigeiss his colleague followed him /
until about 3 p. IN, aud closing the argument 4
for the defence Mr. Basard in reply took the /
ground that possession was always held in law I
TO bc prima iacic evidence OF title, and was a
good title until the contrary shown hy proof /
As 10 the point "that note or bill proved 10
have been usnrious In its inception WAS void in /
the hands Of any suhsequen, holder whatever" "
He did not choose TO reply as Il wss question
which could not determine this case.
Is 10 tho last point made by tine counsel for
defence, he denied it and began 10 cite au,hori
ties 20 sustain him in bis reasoning. Ills argu-
mcn, no, being inished nj the hour OF adjourn
men, the jury was discharged ~ o'clock, until
tomorrow morning al u 0 clock, 10 which time
| the Court ijoUrued.
There was also held, to-day, in the Register IN
/ Chaneerys office, an adjourned term Of the
/ Court OF Chancefy and Orphans Court, at which
4 the Chancellor delivered IN injunction 10 the
Z case u t----- ys, Rodick. also hearing several
motions anA making suniry orders. The most
I Important order Ia respect WAS that made
by bis Honor the Chancellor. in the csse Of Sat-
/ ternwith vs.. Marshall, which heard
some months ago lnearlv year in which the
court dtrrecd That the defendant ahouli, in nc
cordance with disagreement, convey 10 the plain
lif a certain share 10 Ills patent "Rcyo,tins
Crate Bar, and which decree the defendant re-
fused 10 obey, whereupon hc was confined 10 the
C4aatY III for contempt 10 remain uaiil hc
complied with said decree. where he has nccori-
inri been until to-day lie was ordered 10 he
brought before the Chancellor, and on being
questioned he s,..l refused, whc,rupgn the court
ordered him 10 he discharged iFom further Gus
,oiy.
fhe c0ut, Of ChAnccFy aul Orphans Cour,
then adjourned .uiii ih- September term
fHip,r, Mar 30, 1879
Mr. Bayari cJurlalci his argument il tie
casc Of Given VS. Dillon, finishing al about u !
when the Court charged the JURY, the Chiyt
Justice delivering the charge.
oar law agaiuat usuAry Is m ausicn; law, IL
is not Of merely rscsCt enactment, or Of recsni
Interpretation Il was passed ns easly rs the ting
VI George H.
TIE jury !, not called upoa 10 express ans
opinion on the lsw tha, belong, TO the province
, Of tle Court Il is the duty o( every good citi-
zen 70 obey the law. tsgrv lass were original
: ~ passed not 50 much 20 impose penalties IS y
RESTRAIN mca from fo.lr. 10 protect men agH3ps
their own inprudeut acts. There have hren in
stances Of great hardship on the innocent holder
Of pronissory notes, but there u no ncrrs'iy foi
the esistcnc. OF sdch . state OF things. It onl,
: requires diligcaec, caution ana absence Of ucgt
ceuee on tho pariF 70 protect himself from tht
, plea ~ usurv. He can inquire u The party h
takes the note from ii /; i. for value, and sail
party by admitting Il would be esjopped fro.i
= pleading usury hut the acknowledgement OF ,h
c maker will not es0p the payee and indorscr from
setting Up the plea. and 50 the nekuGwle leiEmen
u OF the inicrscr viii not csiop t'c maker frou
/ pleading usury,
| am rcqucs,ci 20 charge ;ha, Il the note WI
void in its Inception and an innocent hutde
q wi,hou, notice had given value Tor it and rhi
fact Was so shown q .. void by the plcadiu
d aud evidence that the burden OF proving valu
given for 1t is thrown upon the plaintiff w
not charge upon this us the principles OF law !
i this case are outside Of the question
!. am also requested to charge tina, though II
note may have been perfectly good in rs origi
Is and holder paid full value Tor II, We, II scckin
! to recover on IL he has 70 truce his title hroug
cndorscr wh0 discounted il at usurious ritt
n the iaist thus acquired follows hr note, and I'll
:, holder is c''upped from recovering upon H.
9 decline SO 10 charge, Il is no, necessary for ii
70 cout, to say anything about the eanHic Of cas-,
:, upon that point as those deciding il u the affirm
" ativc have since been oyerrulel.
r The cause Of action in this ease is note Il
$500 made by Dillon. the defendant. TO Lewis
:! Son dated Sept !, lsil, payable at month
ID and ndorsed by Lewis 4 Son, to B. {. Pear
and by Pearcc 10 a. Giycn, the plaintiff
u The defence alleged is that this paper was
~ no value whatever as between Dillon and Lew
L Son, that II WAS given by Dillon purely for Il
" accommodation OF Lewis 4 Son, and being wit
in out aay value rs between them IT 1t was disros
of hY Dillon or by Lewis 4 Son it must OF ncct
us siiy under the rulings Of the courts be consider
NJ and held as ground for the value advanced upi
H. as the paper had not become an available
oil cufiiy and therefore being loan, II rcirce ga
I'm less than is value for il, II was thereby yiae
never acquired value aud worthless
he The fac, Is established by proof that Pear
took more than i per cent. tor the note 81
upon This being 80 and not disputed, | SO
struct YOU that II there was consideration
sta the note between Dillon and Lewis & Son, i.
purely accommodation note, then the trans
~ ton between Lewis & Son and penrcc was IN
in nature OF u loan Of money, and MAS not the y
or purchase Of valid, available, negotiable
ias curi,y and being therefore a nsarious trans
The ton il rendered the note absolutely void. 7
is settled by hign judicial authority and mon
70 advanced 10 either the maker Dillon or Le'
Let 4 Son payers and ndorscrsi amounts to n 10,
:, ! further instruct you. If the note was usgri,
di- in its inception that Tie laint attaches TO
nm, note itself inheres in /, and follows il In
hands Of = giYer, although he may have been
ing ianooeui holder for value without notice fol
c.s note originally void remains void for all iit
aud no commercial metaphysics or galvanism
cd. ever pa, lfe into H.
al The form of the note is soi material you
- to look TO the substance the truth the fact
the 10 the representations alleged 10 have been MI
49,. BY Lewis & Son, this is \ fact for your consd
III" alton. No representation Of Lewis L Son,
'as Grubb or TO Pearce as to this being u busin
note will in law affect cstopp the maker.
10 Is himself esiopped ii he makes such rcprcsrn
ch ton bu, Is not rs,opped by the representation
others. The plaintiff contends that this was
oag au accommodation note, but was given 70
rial valuable consideration for bricks, or for
ance Of general Indebtedness on account betw
Dillon aud Lewis b Son.
II you are sa,ished from the evidence tha,
note was m accommodation note your verS
will be for the defendant
'as' II you arc satisfied from the evidence tina,
his note was not an accommodation note, but
given by Dillon to Lewis 4 Son for indebiedr
es- for brick or for balance on account due 10 lie