Wilmington daily commercial., 1873-05-29
COURT PROcEEDlmas.
NEw CAsrrr, Nav 2e.

Az" OA9rAa@g may 90
The Court granted on motion Of O. B. Lore,
Esq, rule 70 show cause, DO: why. = writ Of
Jacob Kezear ct al ps Margaret Cannon.
At III A. NJ, the jury in the case of James
Oleaden us Jameo Webb who were out all night,
sent down request to the Court TO discharge
them as they could not agree. This the Court
refused to do, and at P. NJ. they brought In q
verdict for the defendant.
The case Of Archibald Given. vs Patrick Dill
Ion, which was opened, yesterday, was continued
this morning. This is an action of assumpsit
on promissory note for 5000, as was stated In
the Court Proceedings OF yesterday the defence
TO which was that the note was an sccommodn-
tion one, made solely for the accommodation OF
Lewis a Son, and was by them discounted at
usurious rates OF interest.
James Lewis was called by the defendant and
sworn on the Uoire dire. He was asked by Mr..
Whiteley, of counsel for the plaintiff, 'whether
he told George s. Grubb, the broker who had
the note discounted, THAT this was business
paper2 ?" The object Of this question was, IL an
swered In the affirmative. to exclude Lewis from
now being witness to impeaoh the note. Mr..
Bates, Of counsel for defendant, objected, and
after argument to the Court by Mr.. Whiteley for
and Mr. Bates against the examination on the
ooire dire, the Court sustained defendants obiec-
tion stating the fact should be brought out in
the examination in chief, aud is a matter to Af-
feet the witness credibility. To this ruling of
the Court, plaintiff excepted.
Lewis was then sworn as q witness in chief.
His admissibility was objected to by counsel for
plaintiff, on the ground Of incompetek cy for the
same reasons as were adduced in the argument
in the case Of Oleaden Vs. Webb. The Court
overruled the objection, to which exceptions
were taken by plaintiff. In the case of Oleaden
vs. Webb, Lewis was the maker Of the note, aud
was called to prove that 1t was discounted at
usurious rates, and that Webb was Accommoda-
ton endorser. In this case, he was one OF the
payees and endorsers, and was called to prove
that Dillon, the maker, was an accommodation
maker, and that the note was discounted at usu-
rious rates. The testimony of Lewis was that
Dillon signed this note for the accommodation
of Lewis d Son, and at their request; that no
compensation was made TO Dillon for this that
he received no value for the note, and that
there was no unsettled account between
Dillon and Lewis 4 Son for the year 1872
that he (Lews) enclosed the note in an enve-
lope. and sent it to Geo. g. Grubb to raise money
on it, and that the note was discounted at not
less than ~ per cent. per month, besides the
additional charge of broker Of per cent. Wit
ness stated that b. O. Pearce who discounted
the note never made any positive demand on
him for the payment Of il, but expressed the wish
the note might be settled.
On the cross examination when asked by plain
tif's counsel, Did you not state to George
Grubb the broker, on the occasion Of negotia-
tion Of note, and before you received the money,
1t was business paper, or given by Dillon to you
as an Indebtedness for brick p Witness
answered, " have no recollection Of it,"
u. ". Fearco was called Tor Qeten0Ant, (lfiven
the plaintiff obtained the note from Pearce) tes
| titled to having bought the note from Grubb
told him at first he would not take the note un-
less there was an endorser on it, and he believed
| it was borrowed note. Grubb went out of his
(Pearcee) store, and shortly returned and said
Mr.. Lewis had told him most positively that it
was business note given for bricks to build in
q certain row of houses.
George S. Grubb was called by plaintiff and
corresponded with Pearce in his statement.
r. O Paarga racallad n Vxifn fnr
plaintiff. Defendant objected on the ground Of
interest. The objection was sustained by the
Court, to which ruling counsel for plaintiff ex-
cepted
Robert H. Jones was examined by plaintiff.
he had conversation with Dillon between Oct.
30th and Nov, 11th, 1871. Dillon stated there
was an unsettled account between him and Lew
is. He said there were notes outstanding. given
by him TO Lewis to the amount Of $S 200, but he
did not owe Lewis Son as much as the notes
amounted to. II Lewis would present his bill,
he would pay the notes.
Mr.. Whiteley made the opening argument to
the Court and Jury and after dinner was follow
ed by George II. Bates, Esq, who consumed the
afternoon in a law argument to the Court, in
which he cited very many decisions Of reported
cases. MIR. Bates contended that this note was
negotiated between Grubb and Perace at usuri-
GUS rates. This was the inception of the note it
was then void, and was void in whoseseeyer hands
it Afterwards might come. Considering it as an
accommodation note Its negotiation by Lewis
Son was usurious in it's inception and PeArce
could not recover on it. nor could Given, If he
had taken it without value or with notice. For
If the jury think Glven,was not an innocent hold
err he stands in the same light as Pearce
The trial test Of what is all accommodation
| note is whether it was given for value and was
valid when party took it and whether he could
maintain an action upon it that where the plea
alleges he illegdliy OF the note-as in this
| Iii it is shown by the defendent that the note
| was void in its inception, then the burden Of
| proving that the ondorsee took it without no.
tice is thrown upon the plaintiff, which was not
proved in this case.
i Before Mr.. Bates had concluded his Agreo-
ment the Court adjourned till tomorrow at 10
Il o'clock
/ RtNAwAy -Yesterdav aftarnoon n horsa at