The daily gazette., 1875-12-02
|lIBST EDITION
||@lI[[D|NGS OF COURT.
,suRY NOTE CASE.
,.or the Gsxette.

s'' Nrw CASTLE, Dec. LIST, 1875.
met at 10a. m, Judges Gilpin,
COs,, ,on and Wooten on the bench.
5,ss'IS" Srst &c case called was James Cles.
De W. nFI.yeoutrix, rs. James Webb.
Ns, sor plaintiff, and Bird and
,'iaS" s'to;ss for defendant. This was an
SlRlu;, - a promissory note, made by
slean g 6 Son, Nov. s, 1871 for $500,
ss ss..vable to samuel Kelley's order
% j. p'y months after date, and indorsed
rt'. ts''~,cl Kelley and James Webb.
'SIl Ssfense to this action was usury,
s%o deposition of James Lewis dis
i.,,S NJ the Transaction as follows:
s'T y ts71 Jacob Lewis and James
, var ware brickmaking in Whining
N| N',der the name OF Lewis & Son.
.rt st The latter part of July, or the
y, If August, the firm wished to
money. and James Lewis made a
= note @ for $1,000, drawn to the order
csmuel AMI Kelley, payable in three
a,,,Ss, SS and irdorsed by Kelley and
T'Sh 59,S for accommodation. This note
WV Wv. Lewis took to George S. Grubb,
, .o,e broker, to have it negotiated.
,rssb r' and Lewis got into a carriage
ulsI ~ droye to 9th and Tatnall streets,
~ IS.r, Grubb got out and went alone
" lanes Cleaden's house, at 9th and
mast After a short absence, Grubb
,~',n,nsi ~t'T and gave Lewis $S92, as the
o,0cssds .,S of the sale of the note. Lewis
,,ys Grubb $40 for services. This
sots ~. in the hands of James Cleaden,
rdpe and was protested. November
M ISL. James Lewis made two firm
n, '.t,s in renewal of this $1,000 note,
Nm drawn to Kelley's order and both
,dored by Kelley and Webb as ac-
TuOdstiOn indorsers, one at nine
,srths and the the other at twelve
Sribs' The notes were given to
| i,,Ien, they fell due, they were pro
x,N and the parties notified. On
mtthese notes, James Cleaden's Ex-
guttl lhe having since deceased },
5riuu nit against Webb as indorser.
The counsel for the plaintiff insisted
hi there was no proof that Cleader
tyOntnued the original $1,000 note
ia usurious rate, and the counsel fol
\. defense insisted that the taint oi
rry had been proven to exist in the
rginal note, and that therefore tn,
O.a given in renewal of the origina
,pe we're void. The Court instructed
be jury that if they were satisfied
bat James Cleaden did take over 81,
,g cent. for dlscounting the $100(
lote, usury tainted the two latter notei
nd the plaintiff could not recover
| The jury found for the defendant
ibis case occupied all the morning anC
1til Ais in the afternoon.
The next case called was Jacot
achus rs. William II. II. Clark
oruance for plaintiff; Harrington ant
|lOfecker for the defense.
This action was brought on a pro
lisory note made for 5000 by Johr
Clark, Sept. 16, 1873, and drawn t.
Gu. II. Clark's order, payable on,
ar after date and endorsed by VIM
AH. Clark. The defense in this.cas,
NJ usury.
The transaction as showed was this
Nne time in July, 1878, John c
lrk wished money and made a not,
ins6OO drawn to Vim. II, H, Clark
fter, payable three months after date
nd endorsed by the payee for accom-
notation. John G. Clark took thi
tote to McLear & Son and they dis
,ounted it at the rate of II per month
lhs note went to protest, and on Sept
l6lh, 1878, new note in renewal wa
made Tor $500, with the same partie
alt payable one year from date will
llsfest' Jacob Backhus, by purchas
nom heLear & Son, became holder o
mote, without knowledge of tn,
sT. The note went to protest ant
an action is brought by Backhu
nlnst William H. II. Clark, as in
i0Mr.
H. spruance has raised the poin
~ an innocent purchaser cannot b
-Sea .ss by prior usury. The case wa
dCcurt ' II q n