Wilmington daily gazette., 1873-05-31
c0uft eraeAsdlAaa.


usual hour.
Mr.. Bayar,i concluded hts arsaaiOnt in The case
of Given vs.. Dillon. finishing at abodt ia, when
the Court charged the jury and the Chict Justice
the charge.
Our law against nsary is an ancient law, 1t Ia
not OF merely recent enactment, or OF recent in
terpretation, il was passed as carly as the time Of
George ii. 'N' ~
The Jury is not called upon to express any opin-
ION on the law, that belongs TO the province Of the
Court Tits tho duty of every good citizen to obey
the law, Usury laws were originally passed, not
mUCi 10 impose penalties as to restrain mon
from 'I5llSl 1op opvoteetmer against therow impru-
dent acts. There have been instances of great
hardship on the innocent holder Of prouiissory
notes, but there s no necessity for the existence
Of such state of things. 1t only requires di-
Renoe, caution and absence OF negligence on the
party 10 protect himself from the plea of usury.-
He can inquire Of the party he takes the note from
II II Is for value, and said party by admittngi Il
would be estopped from pleading usury, but the
acknowledgment Of the maker will not ostop the
payee and indorser from setting up the plea and so
Che acknowledgment OF the lndorser will not
estop the maker from pleading usury.
l am requested to charge that il the note was
void in its inception and au innocent holder with
out notice had given value for it and this fact was
SO shown q e. void) by the pleading and evidence
that the bulden Of proving value given for it is
thrown upon the plaintiff, will not charge upon
this as the principles of Ia in this care are out
side of the question.
i am also RED dested to charge that though the
note may have been perfectly good in its origin
and holder paye1 tul value Tor It, yet ifseekingto
recover on It he has to trace his title through an
endorser who discounted it at usurious rates the
taint thus acquired follows the note aud the hold
er Is estopped from recovering upon it. decline
to charge 1t is not necessary for the court to say
ANYTHING about the conflict of cases upon that point
as those deciding il in tue affirmative have been
since overTuled.
The couse OF action in this case is a note for
5000 made by Dillon, the defendant, to Liwis II
Son, dated Sept. l, 1871, payable at months ana
indorsed by Lewis u Son 10 b. q. Pearce and by
Pearce to A Given, the plaintiff.
The defence alleged is, this paper was OF no val
ue whatsveras between Dillon and Lewis d Son,
thatit was given by Dillon purely for tho accom-
mediation Of Lew is Il Son, aud being without any
value as between them, If 1t was disposed of by
Dillon or by Lewis IL Son it must of necessity
under the rulings of the Courts be considered and
held as ground for the value advanced upon it. as
the paper had not become an available security,
and therefore being a loan, if Pearce gave less
than its value for It, it thereby vitated,
acquired value and was worthless
l. The fact Is established by proof that Pearce
took more than per cent for the note sued upon.
This being so and not disputed, SO iBsti uct you
thai if there was no consideration for the note
between Dillon and Lewis & Son, i. e., purely
accommodation note, then the transaction be-
tween Lewis q Son and Pcarce was In the ma
ture of loan Of money and was not the sale
or purchase of valId, available, negotiable
security, and being therefore usurious transac-
ton it rendered the note absolutely void. This
is settled by high judicial authority, and money
advanced to either the maker (Dillon) or Lewis
& Son payers and indorsers) amounts to loan.
l further instruct you, If the note was usurious
in its inception that the faint attaches 10 the note
itself inheres in 1t and follows it in the hands of
giVer, although he may have been an innocent
holder for value without notice for note orig-
nalIy void remains void for all time, and no com
mercial metaphysics or gavanism can ever put
| life into It,
The form Of the note is not material, you are
to look to the substance, the truth, the fact. As
\ to the representations alleged to have been made
by Lewis d Son, this is TACT for your considera-
| tion.i Mo- representation of Lewis Il Son 10
Grubb or to Pearce as to this being business
note will in law affect or estopp the maker. He
Iis'himsef f5estopped if he makes such representa-
tioD but Is not estopped by the representation OF
totteTs.-&fhe plaintiff contends that this was not
an accommodation note, but was given for a
valuable consideration for bricks, or for a bal
auce of general Indebtedness on account between
| Dillon aud Lewis & son.
If YOU ate satisfied from the evidence that tho
| note was an accommodation note, your verdict
| will be for the defendant
| If YOU are satisfied from the evidence that the
note was not an accommodation note, but was
| given by Dillon to Lewis ~ Son for Indebtedness
Tor BRICK or for balance on account due to Lewis
q Son, then the note was good in its inception
"
u per cent, and il good ip its inception that no
fsubsequent usurous transaction would affect it,
and your verdict will be for the plaintiff.
The Jury retired at about 1918 and returned
about 43O, with verdict for SG55 30 for the plain
tiff H...4
In the case OF Silas s. johnson VS.. the Green
Branch Ditch Company, in which an nterlocn
tonaTy judgement was obtained at last term on
inquisiLion at Bar Vas held ~ ascertain amOuR
of damages, and the jury rendered verdict fol
plaintiff for Sl7705. Walter Cummins, Esq. fo
plaintiff. Similar action was'also had in the cas'
of A. s. Woolley VS.. John A. Mitchell, resulting
In verdict for plaintiff for S100 W. r. Hodg
son, Esq, for plaintiff. Owing TO the time con
sumed by the trials had at this term there wer,
less than 20 cases continued to the next, whicl
had been marked on the list for trial In No. l5t
judgment for plaintiff for $153S.46. No. 1873
Judgment for plaintiff, amount TO be ascertaineC
by counsel. No. ca, judgment for plaintiff 70
$500. Nos. "a and l19 referred. Nos. 20, ia
! l2l discontinued. No, l75, judgment 10 Layton
for costs.
The jury weA discharged from further attend
ance at this term. The remainder OF the after
noon was taken up in a law argument in tn
case Of James France VS.. A. X. WOolston, on tn
construction of the Mechanics Lien Law; ant
lasking the Court 10 strike Of the plaintiffs lien
on the grounds of his being contractor ant
having filed his claim within the GO instead of tn
. 80 days, as by the law provided for contractors
Aiessrs Patterson 4 Neds against the lien, ant
W. X. lIodson, Esq, in fayor of it, and denying
the main fact in point of law that France was
contractor, and for its mentenance OF the Hen.
II This Is an interesting question 70 the member
Of the Bar. As TO what the law really is was no
decided at the hour of adjournment.