Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-10-01
THE COUNTS.
COURT IN GENERAL TRgx.
A QUESTION or psURY.

QUESTION OF psuRY.
1ekter ay the case of Sullivan AIT, SnAll ct
al was taken up-Messrs. j. K. Norris aud Me-
Connell for plaintiff, and T.. G. Hine and Bond
Tor defendants: This suit is upon a promissory
note for $500, dated Washington, ID. O., March
%, 1913, made by MIR. Porter Smell, PAYABLE to
the order OF George Burgess ninety days after
cate, with interest at the rate OF ten per cent
per annum, and endorsed by the defend ants,
Burgess, Ormes and Kitch. The defendants
plead, in substance, that the note was made by
Smell and endorsed by the other defendants for
the accommodation and benefit of Ormes; that
neither Smell nor Burgess had any benefit from
II; that only S4t5 was paid AZ a consider alton
for the note at the time il was first passed for
value and that II was first negotiated for value
to the plaintiff; on which pleas issue was Joined
trial had, and verdict rendered in favor OF
palntth for 500, with interest from March D.
loa3, az the rate OF ten per cent. per sunum.
The bill Of exceptions states that upon the
trlal, TO maintain and prove the issues, evidence
was given for the defendants tending to proye
that the note was made by the defendant Smell
and endorsed by the defendant Burgess for the
benefit aud accommodation of defendant
Ormes; that neither Smell nor Burgess received
any part OF the proceeds, but that the same was
received by Ormes aud Kitch; that the note was
fret passed for valne to the plaintiff throu yh
one CLARK, broker and that only S4I5 was re-
ceived upon 1t. And evidence was given on
behalf OF the plaintiff tending TO show that said
Clark brought the note to the plaintiff, stating
that he had a good note which the parties
wanted TO raise money n pom, and that the plain
[ ii said if the defendant Kitch would ri re him
a writing that the note should be paid at ma
turity be would advance the money upon it,
and that the plaintiff took the note at about it,
date, and adyanced 500 for il.
The counsel for defendant PRAYED the court
TO instruct the jury that if they should find from
the evidence that the first time the note was
passed for value was when il was passed TO
plaintIh, and he advanced for il a less sum tn an
me race OF the note, then he was entitled TO re-
cover only the amount advanced, without paw.
Inc court refused TO grant this instruction
ana defendant excepted. The court then in
structed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled
toTecover what he advanced for the note, with
interest from the date of the note. An exec D
ton was also taken 10 this instruction.
Defendants points are, 1. By the usury law in
force In this District prior to ApIil p, IST0 all
" bonds, contracts aud assurances" for the pay
ment OF more than six per cent. interest were
utterly void" ON the date above given the
act OF Congress was passed allowing ten per
cent interest to be contracted for in writing
sno providing that any person contracting to
receive above that rate shall forfeit the whole
interest contracted to be received, and shall be
enutle d only to recover the principal sum due.
10 lend SIS or $3.50 and to take for il a note
for $500, drawing interest at the rate of ten per
cent per snuum, is certainly usurious, aud un-
DER the old law would render the contract cut
terry void" while under the present law the
lender fOrteits all Interest, AID can recover
is not the face of the note, but
the sum lent. The instruction requested was
10 the effect that If the note was first passed for
Valne to the plaintiff, and for less th an its face
IL became tainted with usury, and the plaintiff
Couiu OnlJ recover tne 81 N lent, which position
Is sustained by the following, among numerous
2. The note in question does not call for in
terest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum
untl pad, yet the instruction of the court caused
the jury TO render their verdict for interest," at
that rate, not only from the date OF the note
until its maturity, but until the payment of the
judgment.
This morning, j. II. Flagy, of Vermont, was,
on motion of MIR. IngersolI, admitted TO the ba-
connecticut General Lille Insurance Co. ct al.
agt. Hsrkness; decree below affirmed.
ne case of Hovey agt. Valentine ct al, fin
Junction) was taken up.
POLICE COUET-Jufgs Shell
TO day James Reynolds and Alonzo Green
FORFEITED collateral James Grant, vagrancy;
bonds. Charles Steinberry and LLOYD Adams,
disorderly; So each. Martin WEIGH, vagrancy;
ponds. Minnie Ford, vsgrancy; bonds. Lizzie
NalIor ana William Cox, disOrderly; - each
John Sullivan, disorderly; -. Laura Jones
profanity; 50. Henry UOrnwell, profanity; $40,
James Washington, disOrderIy; IS. TAYLOR
Jones, trespass; s.. Abe Henson, Charles
Bruce, and H. Conway, disorderlv: = each.
MARIA Banks, ya2rancv; bonds. Samuel b anks,
VagTahcy; bonds. Michael Cayenah, Indecent
exposures -. Lilly Thompson, disOrderlv 81
Joseph Iorrens, keeping barber-shOp open on
SunGSyj discharged. Sarah Wells, assault aud
battery on william Cox; So and costs John
with larceny of a single set OF harness; JOtn
r vans hned so and costs, Whitehead dis
charged. Henry Ofiutt. larceny OF so bill;
REFORM school; John Walker, larceny of coat;
go, and costs-thirty DAYS I'm workhonss. .Ilhu |
SPEAKS, Carrying arazOr; 81, or thirty DAYS n |
Y orEhouse. Edward johnson, Charles Grandi- !
son. James Baylor and John Speaks disOrIeriv
at festival in MOOre's Hal: 3 each. or tbirtg /
days in workhouge. Alfred Fields, arson; grand /
Jury,