New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-02-02
THE COURTS.
ovrRs, INTEREST CHARGES.

,yovrRS, INTEREST CHARGES.
.,,.,-,1t,v OF THE EXAMINATION OF DRAKE
nRoTnERs IN A SUIT FOR RECOVERING OSohioo'
INTEREST. m
T., ,ho snit of Maurice Cuvillier against the
n-ate Rrothers to sl5G6 To- alleged us"iou'
,,,orost counsel appeared before justice Dohoue :"
the snpreme Court Chambers, on saturday nor"lns' "
oder 90 obtain the decision of the Court as 10 the
sity Of the defendant (wm. T. Drake) answering 'no
onestio,s mt 70 him on Thursday in the examination
nrem,nary TO trial John I. Anthem ana Damei =. piu
sail appeared for the plaintiff. and Danie w " ""
Ira shaffer for the defendants. Gen. Autumn 'p -.
the nature OF the suit. aud said that Nuo "oioiu "
their answer set up the defense that the usu'i'uS
eat was money paid by them to other persons 10
them 10 carry plaintiffs stocks MI DiaAo h"' ~
his examination refused answer two questions. on
the ground that the answers might tend to estaohsh
usurious interest. The questions were' "hat amount
OF csptal do you have employed IN your ouSlhess'
and Do YOU charee.yOur customers interest on tae
stocks carried for themp
Tho Judee-Cannot the questions be 30 shaped that
tney may apply 90 this transaction alonet 49,
MI shafier-Mr Birdsall in his examination did not
confne himself at all 10 this transaction. VIII state
the case Cuvlher claims that che employed the BONO
Brothers Of Montreal Canada to purchase Snd sen
Drake Brothers. We did not know the plaintiff IN me
transactions The questions were asked ID regard otne
defendants general business transactions
The COurtTno second question Is TOO general anu is
inquiry into other peoples business; the HIs' iacA
Mr.. AntAon-The defense IA that the defendants Dor
rOwed money carry plaintiffs Stocks VIC want "
know what their capital -,
The CourtIf thoy had sl0O0OOO don't see that that
affects the truth OF the They might sun nave
carried this stock on borrowed money
Those interested retired to another room, and the e1
animation OF VIM. 7. Drake was continued. He had no
personal recollection OF any stock transactions with the
Bond Brothers in December 1872, in 1885, lie couid
not toll anything about the matter without consulting
the books OF The firm.
Mr. Anthol-Will you refresh your recollection. ana
cline 90 ground that 1t would tend TO GRIM
mate -,., .
q on what ground have you this appreh ensionf a.
| decline 10 state. " 4, -.
O. Isn't because It would render YOU liable to the pains
aud penalties of the Usury Law 7 A. Ii IS.
q Can yam state what charges were made by your
firm agau, the Bond Bros. for carrying stocks during
The period named A. l don't think can; said De-
fore that didu't know whether We were carving
stocks them at all; can't tell anything ABOUT IL
without my books. =,
q Don't y,n know Of yorktown knowledge a. de-
cline 10 an ,W9r.
O. Do you decline because the answer would render
You liable forms and penalties Of the Usury law
A. H. ma do %. , -.
O. Iit 90 consequence CO this apprehension that you
refuse 60 state whether you had transactions at the
time mentioned with the Bond Bros.i \. II Il. l..
O. la what books would you have 70 look IN order 10
obtain Che uformaOnl 4. decline 10 answer on Tue
same ground Is before stated
AZ this point The examination adjourned in order
that thc record might be made mp from the senograph-
rts noes aad decision be obtained from the Court as
10 tho obi aon Oh the defendant TO answer the ques
tons