Wilmington daily commercial., 1875-12-02
NEW CASTLE, Dec.

NEW CASTLE, Dec /.
Court opened at 10 o'clock.
Tho first case called was James Cloaden's Ex.
ecutri1 against James Webb. Gordon for plain
tin, Bird and Higgins for defendant. Tins WAS
an action on promissory note made by Lewis
Son, November 8, 1871, for $1,000 and payable
to Samuel Kelly's order IL months after date
and indorsed by Samuel Kelley and James Webb.
The defense to this action was u-ury and the
deposition OF James Lewis disclosed the tram
action az follows: In 1871 Jacob Lewis and
James Lewis were brick making in Wilmington
under the name of Lewis K Son. About tho lat
ter part of July Or the first OF August the finn
wished to raise money and James Lewis made
firm note for sl00O. drawn to the order Of
Samuel Kelley payable in three months aud in
dorsed by Kelley aud Webb for accommodation.
This note James Lewis took to Geo. s. Grubb,
| note broker to have it negotiated. Grubb and
Lewis got into carriage and drove down 10
Ninth and Tatnall, where Grubb got out and
went to James Cleaden's house at Ninth and
West. After short absence Grubb return6d d
and gave Lewis sS92 90 as the proceeds of the
note. Lewis gave Grubb $1,000 for his services.
| This note i'll the hands OF James Ceaden fell
| due and was protested. November g. 1871, james
| Lewis made two firm notes III renewal of this
| $1,000 90 note, both drawn to Kelley's order and
| both lndorsed by Kelley aud Webb for accom-
| modation, one payable at months, the other at
| II months. These notes were given to Cleaden,
| they fell due, they We're protested and the par
tioo hbtiiicu. Ou uu6 Vi tlctB nOIeS James
Cleadens executrix Che having since died)
bring, suit against Webb as ndorser counsel for
plaintiff insisted that there WAS no proof that
Cleaden discounted at an usurious rate, and the
defense insisted that the faint of usury had been
| proven in the original note and that it followed
| the notes given i'll renewal and made them void
| The Court charged that il the Jury was satisfied
| that James Cleaden did take over eix per cent
for discounting the 81 900 note then n4ury tain
| ted the later notes III well, and the plaintiff
conll not recover Tie Jury found verdict for
1 the defendant.
| The next case called was Jacob Backhus u.s.
| VIM. III. IL Clark Spruance for plaintiff, and
and Harrington and Hoflecker for the defend
ants. This action was brought on promissory
| note for $500 made by John q. Clark, Septeni-
| ber 10th 1873 drawn to Vim. Ii. II. Clark y order
/ payable one earafter date and indorsea by VIM
| H. IL. Clark. The defense in this case is uaury.
| Inc transaction as shown was this; sometime in
July, 1873 John q. Clark wanted money and
| made a note for $500. 90 drawn to VIM H. IL
| Clark order payable months after date and
| lndorsed by the payee for accommodation. John
| 9. Clark took this note to McLear x Son, and
they discounted it at the rate OF i per cent per
| month. This note went to protest and Oh Sep
| tember 16, 1873, new note in renewal was made
| with the same parties in 1t, payable one year
| from date, with interest. Jacob Backhus, by
| pufl hase from McLear Sun, became holder Of
| this note without notice of the usury The
| note went to protest and this action is brought
by Backhus againt VIM. II. II. Clark as indorser
Mr.. Spruance has raised the point that an imno-
cent purchaser cannot be affected by prior usury
The case was still being argued at the al
journment of Court. II n