, 1875-12-21
lnsucr Of Lawyer Douglas to tho Clargcs
Against Him.
The illinois River Road Again Appears in
Court,
Record Of Judgmenta and New Suits.
THE INTERNATIONAL BANK,

and transferred to tho bnuk, In duo tifnb tho
eaao MAS referred to the Nfastor In Caneory, to
take proofs Of tho amounts due and, among 9TH
CTS, Tho President Of Tho bank, h1r. Loowsnthn1,
uaa put On tim stand al wilncss for Tho COM
plaiuant. On tie oroBs-exaEninntion ho tcBtifed
that tho bhnk kept m account with WAlkor
In which discounts wore entered. On tho
bnck Of tho notes discounted, also were ontrics
indicating e1tonsonH Of such paper, aud tho
books Of tho bank contained enttieH Of moneys
paid ht the tino Of making suosl extensions aud
also III reference to tue collatorafs tnken from
Walker by tho bank en- making and extending
The loans. a subp.cna waa then served OIL
Luownnthat to produce tho books for tho boucflt
Of tho letondAnts. This llc declined to do, for
the reason that IT produced thoy would hAYo
tendency to expose tho International Dauk ns
wcfl ns those claiming undor tho bank ia tho
proaont suits on Walkers notes to the penal
liability OF usary or forfeiture OF tho hum taken
BY them, or contracted for with Walkor, and
would havo Tho tendency to subject tho bank and
rattics claiming Under 1t to such penalty or
forfeiture OF uBlrE, and would have q tendency
to furnish evidence vhoreby tho franchises and
charter Of tho bank might bo forfeited on &C.
collt Of Buph injury. In fact. it was admitted
BY the bank TINT 1t lad takon usurous interest,
and It offered to produce tho books II all nes1ry
was waived. Tho question was then referred
ly tho Mastor 10 the Court for settlement, and
tLo decision was given yesterday morning.
Tho Judge aafu that tho gncaon to bo determined
Eaa whether tho excuse for iho non'pronction Of it,
toufs on the part of tho bank ynl cxcueo in
law. The general rule in regard to The limitations of
discovery Of oyiduuce was that dscovory would ha
compelled IN any caae Wien such discovery woult!
any kind or to nuy extent or to expose him to for
fcitnro Or penalty. And In Tho event Of an answer
having such tendency tho witness might refuao to
anBHer not only 10 lilo principal fact. but eg to
every Incidental TACT which might form link in the
chain Of evidence going 10 establish tho criminal net
nr tho forfeiture. CourtA Of chanccEy had always
fuurd to compel ran 70 criniiato hlmsr!t, mud by
lna1ogy to dzciose my faet which would subiect hi.,
,ose The objection that their answer tended to expose
Tho party TO- forfeiture or penalty sna the ealon ot
III 'c particular circumstances before tho Court.
Neither did tae rule reeognizo any difference 'he-
tween tho forfeiture Of th!ng ycasod aud disability
10 lake thing indicted as penalty" Nor ~as tho
nrotcctlon limited to tic larty himself bt It c1enl
r. t. ssmg e, 9de @ wSsF ty
The statute q Illinois provided that PARTIES might
sha taking Of any greater rate subjected tho parry
stg It to aho forfeiture Of snch e1cths and he would
oaly hc allowed 70 recover tho principal. was tho
Ite menntuH Of Tin l1w? forfeiture tho loss II
1oneshing through fault, oncnke. Or crime. an in-
ts,ser Or surrender to rono oher, whether It bo m
Individual or thu btate penalty, Wien spoken IT tn
connection With forfeiture, might be considered
tynonym OF tie latter word. IL the prrsent caac,
gaaklc paper to tho amount of hundreds Of thousands
dolsars had beon aisconnted y tho hank fnr Walker
md II was claimed largo amount Of ncrcst had been
reason the bank refused to produce H. bots. Arary
taJtng 'aurln'Ia ntnraat might sic for and recover
the illegal excess in a suit for money had and Eo-
reved. II the looks OF tho bunk showed that II had
taken ilegal Interest," there would be forfeiture by
the bank. 1t would be loss by the bank Of what It
Lsd u !tH possession q whht WA tia own, and ot
Mlat could not 10 la"flIy deprived Of Ill suit o
teit''To and penalty II londr cams Into court to
tecuvcr on uenrtous contract conrt would not aid
him, and II tho defendant c.ablished tho fact Of
nstEy the court won1a give thu complainant wilat
HE Law allowed, mid no more. Tn tho other
band, II the borrower came into court asking
relief by discovery from ths lender tle Court would
re4uirc him % tendcr % the lender before compelling
discovery tho PRINCIPAL md legal interest, on thu
ra, s ha ~ VIC s9sS e1aty Put do equity:
!'ur the defense Of nanry sonaht to cstAbsh That
dcftnAo by Testimony eatoric from tho other party. II
10 could establish dcfcntc Of usnEy without this ronl-
panants eytdencc, ho co!d hAyo the full benefit nf
lilo Law; II not, he must to equity before no demands
Me1uY.
Which enacted tat no party ahoA he obliged to giyo
evidence tho tendency Of which would Ie 10 cxpo.a
hn to penalty or forfe!ture. In The present casD
lho conflicting interests Of the seyoru parties ulsID
Tho application Of tue Iule difficult, but tlcr0
reason why should not ho enforced It For tho
PARTIES Ia deterMno whether they could estahllsh tho
defense Of usnry without tue Md Of a coniafnantH
To aa u y, 10 ~ h 2,