Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1873-05-31

annot concur with the counsel. III tnih
,ote was given for the $500 originally
oaned on usurious contract, the taint
would follow IL. This note must In the
rev of the Jury be itself tainted with
isury TO render II usurious.
II this were qasi tam action the statute
would haze to be construed strictly Tor
here the party 10 subjected 70 penalty,
md 10 criminal proceedings the party y
to be innocent. But In civil
actions the jury must decide by the evil
ience and be guided by II. IL you are
satisfied by the evidence that this mole
was tainted with usury, your verdict VIII
be for the defendant. If not tainted,
your verdict will be for the plaintih. The
Jury retired aud not having returned at
The hour Of adjournment, were empowered
10 bring In this evening a scaled verdict.
The case Of Archibald Given Va.
Patrick Dillon, was called for trial. |
This was a suit brought on a promissory |
note for 5000, made by Patrick Dillon |
september lat, 1871, payable 10 the order |
of Lewis Il Son three months after date. |
Il was endorsed by Lewis & Son, B. @. |
Pesrce and A. Given. The defence was,
this was a note made solely for the ac-
of Lewis 81 Son, and was
thus counted by them at usurious rates
of interest. Plaintiff proved the note,
and defendant opened his case. AT this
point Court adjourned till tomorrow at
10R. IN.
New CASTLE, May 2sth, 1s75.-0u the
motion of Charles B. Lore, Esq., Court
granted q rule to show cause, ETC., why
writ OF possession should not be Issued
In the case OF Jacob Kezesr, Ct. al. Us.
Margaret Cannon.
AT liz O'Clock, a. IA, the Jury 10 the
case of James Cleaden Us. james Webb,
who were out all night, sent down re-
quest to the Court 10 discharge them, as
thew could not agree. This the Court
refused to do, and at | O'Clock, p. M,
they brought In a verdict for defendant.
The case of Archibald Given Us. Patrick
Dillon, which was opened yesterday, was
continued this morning. This Is an
action of sssumpsit on a promissory note
for $500, as was stated IN the Court pro-
ceedlngs yesterday, the defence to which
was that the note was an accommodation
one made solely for the accommodation
of Lewis g. Son, and was by them dis
counted at usurlons rates of interest.
James Lewis was called by the defendant
\ and sworn in the Voire dire. He was asked
by Mr.. Whileley, of counsel for the plain
tiff, "whether he told George s. Grub,
the broker who had the note discounted,
that this was business paper The
object Of this question WAS, II answered
| In the affirmative, to exclude Lewis from
now being O witness to impeach the note.
MIR. Bates, of counsel for defendant OBJ
iected, and after argument to the Court
by Mr.. whitley for, and Mr.. Bates
against the examination on the Uoire dire,
the Court sustained defendanps objection,
stating the fact should be brought out 10
the examination In chief and Is a matter
TO affect the witness credltility. To this
ruling of the Court plaintiff excepted.
Lewis was then sworn as witness In
chief. His admissibility was objected &c
BY counsel for plaintiff, on the ground OIL
incompetency, for the same reasons al
were adduced in the argument in the case
OF Cleaden w. Webb. The Court over
ruled the objection, to which exceptions
were taken by plaintiff. I'm the case o
Cleaden Us. Webb, Lewis was maker o
the note, and was called TO prove that I
was discounted at usurious rates, and tina
Webb was an accommodation eudorser
In this case he was one of the payees ant
epdorsers, and was called TO prove tha
. Dillon, the maker, was an accommodation
maker, and that the note was discounted
nj usunous rates. The testimony o
: Lewis was that Dillon signed this note 70
the accommodation of Lewis & Son, an
/ at their request that no compensation
was made to Dillyn for tkis that he re
ceived no value Tor the note, and tina
there was no unsettled account betwee
; Dillon and Lewis Il Son for the year 1871
that he (Lewis) enclosed the note IN a
! envelope and cent il to Geo. 5. srubo
! raise money on II, and that the note wa
/ discounted at not less than ~ per CEN
9 per month, besides the additional charg
y Of broker of per cent. Witness state
=: that b. q. Pearce, who discounted u
+, note, never made any positive demand o
(. him for the payment of IL, but expresse
p me wish that the note might be settled
q On the REORGANIZATION, when aske
nv plaiptiffis counsel, "Did you not stat
: 10 George s. Grub, the broker, on II
: occasion of negotiation Of mote, an
a bsGers YOU received the money, It WI
/. business paper, or given by Dillon 10 yc
" as an Indebtedness for brick :" witne
h answered "I have no recollection Of II.
Ie BIC. Pearce was called for defendan
n (GIyen, the plaintiff, obtained the no
n from Pearce) and testified TO havil
L bought the note from Grub. Told hi
/. at first he would not take the note unle
l. there was an endorser on II, aud
d believed Ii was borrowed note. Grul
m went out of his (Pearce's) store, Al
d shortly returned and said Mr.. LOWS b
,r told him most positively that It was
Ia business note given for bricks to build
" certain row Of houses.
:. George 8. Grub was called by plant
re and proved also what Peafee had testih
Of TO.
"a &c. Pearce was recalled as a witne
ID for plaintiff Defendants objected on
re ground of interest. Tine objection W
re snstained BY the Court, to which ruli
q. counsel for plaintiff excepted.
n Robert II. Jones was examined
plaintiff. He had a conversation wi
of Dillon between October 30th and Move
IA. Der 18th, 1871. Dillon stated there "
Ie an unsettled account between him a
,e. Lewis. He said there were notes Of
at standing given by him to Lewis to
ur amount Of e3200. But he did not
nv Lewis & Son as much as the no
on amounted to. If Lewis would pres'
he his bill, he would pay these notes
Mr.. Whlteley made the opening arr
he ment to the Court and jury, and al
m dinner was followed by George H. Bat
Eco, who consumed the afternoon Il
en- law argument 10 the Court, In which
on cited very many decisions OF repcr
i'd cases.
10. Mr. Bates contended that this note
ice negotiated between Grub and fearce
The usuIious rates. This was the incept
ne of the notes, 1t WAS then void, and '
ia void in whoeesoever hands 1t afterwa
The might come.
ace Considering II as an aeeonlnoua.
Ia note. its negotiation by Lewis & Son
r. usurious 10 Its inception and Pea
in could not recover on it, nor could Gil
ms II he had taken II without value or
J a notice. For if the jury think Given
7ed not an innocent holder, he stands in
de- same right as Pearce.
the The tue test of what is an accom-
vas dstion note is, whether il was given
nav value and was valid when party tool
stal and whether he could maintain &C
upon It. That where the plea dllege
the ilieaality of the note-as In this case
,ble il IL shown by the defendant that the
the was void in its inception, then the bui
for OF proving that the indorser took II
iird. ont notice Is thrown upon the plan
rted which was not proved 10 this case. Be
ous- Mr., Bates had concluded his argur
4 to the Court adjourned till tomorrow m
ing at 10 O'Clock.
light NEW CASTLE, May Goth, 1878
ebb, Courts were opened this morning al
e oy usual hour. ~ a.,
arch In the case Of Archibald Giver
rider Patrick Dillon, on trial yesterday,
ID TO counsel Cor the defence, Mr. Geo. ID. b
made the following additional points
G: a further defence: sThat if note,
the In its inception, be transferred up
law general Endorsement at rate OF
than legal interest, 1t Is contract
the nsurious an TO the enaorser, and |