Wilmington daily gazette., 1873-05-27
oouRT PRocEEnlMos.

o. b, a., Va. 1idInund Provost, =. b. Il.
Tho points OF interest in the charge wero in
substance thescj An the fslmer action the lPlP;n-
till was bound to recover on the special contract
or not at all Ii ha recovered tho Bnm, Of 5000 at
all. be was bouudto Do so on the contract. Bat
tins suit is not Oh e cotrAet at ALL and IL Pealce
iWaslever bound 10 return this amount (SlO0) TO
Prot6st, \ hs hh 1he principles of the cOtnmon
INV that principle OF equity and justice ON which
one hatbOund 10 pay over the sum which he holds
Of d6other's-randf abe question is, is not Pearce
bouhd to rag TO Provost the 500 as tho sum he
dcfbSiicl, and whether the, plaintiff is ehtJpped
and pteC,uded in this action by the judgment, or
the demurrer on thefFst nne; Is this identical writ
the first Ne arc Of the opinion II is not. Is he
discharged by his haVingpaid over the stakes 1t
is cbntended that he paid Il over without notice. or
sufficient notice from Provost that be claimed thus
fund, and not to pay il 10 Givin. This Is a ques-
tlo1 VI fact for yoR to consider The stake holder
Is aitTusteefor both parties aud be is bound 70
act IN good faith Go them an. II he had in good
taiih, sud without notice paid 1t over IL would
ia many cases have discharged him, and the
plaintiff cannot recover hut Ahis Issav Is "a QHes-
ton OF tacts Tor YOU. aNOu are 30 determine
whether the trying of the first SUIT ON Nov Il,
1868. hetOra the money was paid over, dee u,
lS6S) was notice 70 l'eaTcc that he claimed tht,
stakes aud whether that fact of bringing suit 100
other sum having been proved t. be in Pearee' 3
boni clnnsei 10y hum was sufficient notlce. Was
At canilOn 10 him 10 act perfect good faith 20
that notice was given in any way, UT that Provost
Elade any claim to il, NE say to you that he hay
ing paid lt over under such astanees he can
not exhonorate himself from liability, 1t is pro-
per for gen 10 take lntO c1nsdeation IN this con
necton all the circumstances attending this trans
action from the beglnng The taking by Pearce
oi the bond Of Judgement receipt, NC. That If
be paid 1t with notice, aud that notice was a suti-
cienf one, be did IT at his own Iisk The Jury re-
ired. r. .t..~
tune "wednesday next being tho last dav) in
WhIeh to draw ont and file his exceptions ia the
caselOt UDaniel VS.. RAkeIs Union, preparatory
Is taking the case to the Court OF Errors and Ar
penls, which sets next month at Dover The
eOurt did not hold him to the stTiot Iue, hut said
he must not lake St asto prejudice the plaintiif in
her right as to not hear the case on tue Appeal
10. Al on / LAbiiA eobauSel. Z ~. II
Nps o. aud Go referred by consent TO W $.
NJ Is, judo meat fbr pIaidtitr nh,oaut to bs as
coItAihed 10y Prothonoiary. No stay OF execution.
No. 4G continued. '--
Nps. l20. l26, ~, l2S. l29, 1870, l3i, l45. lI7.
l4s.li2 los aud l6l continued By cor sent.
No. lao referred, 40 COUNSEL.
III NeS1JOmo'ibn ID suggestthe death Of plain
tan On record. and to make executors Of plaiDt fl
pan sies to the SUIT
No l6j waN continued On ground Of absence Of
materiapWi itness. 80 fsT ttl
In No. 45. James Cleaden VS.. james Webb
an action IN the case ou a promisary note. De
ience usury. Mr.. Gordon counsel for plaintiff
asked leave 70 withdraw his application aud died A
denurrer. Granted. Defendants counsel, Messrs.
Higgins and Bird, they asked leave TO withdraw
the please. OF usury. Granted. This brought tho
case 10 the general issue, under which they can
give evidence OF the whole ira lsactiop and bong
thus ready for triai Jury was drawa Plaintiff
then found the note, and protest, and rested
Then case. The defence by Mr. Bird then stated
the folio wing as the faeis Of their case which
they would sustain ny proof That IN J1iIy 1871.
Lewis " son Glye 10 Gleadeu q mote for 81, ,OOo
at three mo Iths with James Webb as an accomo-
datipn end ,eT, and for W hich they cot net SS92
this n0te Mag a1leT1Eards dennTred. That in .Oe.
tober 1871, Lewis * Son borrowed flu tbcr AZ n
of $500, iroms Cleaden for one day, for which
they paid Ccstden IS, tSc check, this was not
pld the next day nor for some time; when in
March lG 1872, they gave Cieaden a note at 40
days for $500 also SG030, total of said note
$3.50 3d. Jior Aha juterest &c, on the-o1ioinsI
Sl0(JNOte, ,iahd also gave James Webb as an in
dorser, and claimed that this $500 33 mole now
sued ON was founded tOnIan uslrOus c0nsidera-
lion, and that James Webb was only an accOmo-
dAtiOn indOrser, snd never did receive one dollar
in The way Of value. He gave rs witness. James
Lewis one of the finn of Lewis & Son and One
of the makers Of this note TO establish, who be-
fore he was sworn, was objected 10 by T. f. Bav-
ard, ESD, counsel for plaintiff ON these grounds
note 70 shoW but that il Wss a pure, sad lec;ti-
mate busiuess note, or an ordinary couA,nareia 4
note proPefly drawn, BY James Webb, ire pavee
aud by Il shaorsed TO Jsnes 1Clsa1cn, aud by
hun endS tng collection, the latter having been
notified d when sfst brought sad Gu TIE noe Il
self but N Tie - tOfseInent IA blank could IN va
passed from hAnd t6 BIN J. aud that this bcino
the fact as from the note {gaLherod-he was MOT
or could be a competeAt witness In this, that AS
the present suit had been brought against Webb.
Ntn Nsaaru-a - a.
ty [iu cSso nd ln6At asainst liini and 'narnh tbe
face OF the note, and costs well as interest and
damages which he w ebb had sustained 80 lie.
ing compelled 20 pas, and IN tins he was iDteres
ted dirGC1ly ia the cost OF the suh. -.
-. That tie bond rule, as laid down Nv lord
Ms1sfeid and snstained BY the Supreme CouTt 81
the u. 3. woutd exclOde him which is in effect IN
general that wIIela mah puts his IianAe TO niece
Of paper and tells to the world for value received
PROMISE 70 pay, 50 lRuch money without .defal-
cation, and - Sueh IT. goes into circulation, he
shall not bs allowed 10 colne into, A. court ana
satisfy bimse4 by sayiRg, IL was not given for
yalue, and deny fhe plain simple face Of Tue not,
and the result therein sci forth. ~. y +. :,
lie ciIed many cases both Eng6sh aud AmaEseann
support q these p!ineiPies, finishing his aIgu-
ment ab shout 2 O'Clock. = Mr. Hircins reniSa
aud disposed ~ the tifst objection by sav,s IN
Mr.. LoNia bad been released from lia6Flite lFor
costs &c and this objsetOns was fnilyrnet Ana -
10 the "a objection no said that the current of ~.
cnority,an Ametica has bean aRainat the ruiIa n
.ala aeEa Dy me great Enghsh Judge. and fAFth.
e, that IN those States which still adhere Ia IL
they only apply il 70 these cases OF nee6cidbls a
per when the suit haB been bnOnght 6y al inSol
cent holder or indprsee for Value: that Il nd
been thus uIcdihedand was never APPLIED in fbs
States OF Mass. AnabRsnnas a. well a. sokaS ether
THIS. He cited mAny aUthoritiess 10 sustain this
pFineipIe ana gusd the part at laneth' oontinn-
ing nntal hSaEtha iiS6F Ror aaionrnment' l7TF5-'
: The OonTt, lanEhing that the juryin ths ea.aog
Reafce VI. Rr0yOst had nat yet noinO % Z eohsIa O
siopi ordeEed tie Clerk - taay thAt should tAeV