The daily gazette., 1877-11-30
FIRST EDITION.!
Proceedings Of Court.


Case of Thos. Il. Eliason ps. Jas. Le-
eompt-A Knotty Cdse-Prison.rs
Reteased-Apptication for Ne,o tri-
al Refused.
NEW CASTLE, Nov. %, 1877.
The court proceedings subsequent to
those published in Wednesdays GAZETTE
are as follows:
The case of Eliason vs. Lecompte oc-
cupied the time from IL o'clock TO 1.3O.
III the examination of witnesses. AS
has already been said, it was suit to re-
cover the value of promissory note for
$1,000. The amount claimed included
interest which raised 1t to $2,353.67.
AT 1.30 court adjourned until o'clock
In the afternoon.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Court re-assembled at 8 o'clock. W.
The case of Eliason VS.. Lecompt was
resumed.
The proceedings in this action, which
was very knotty one, at last reached
that point where it had nearly emptied
the court house and nearly driven the
jurors to distraction.
Through the kindness of one of the
legal fraternity the intricacies were push
ed aside and the facts revealed in this
wise: There was a man named Lore,
living in the vicinity of Middletown,
who became pushed for money and in or
der to meet the demand he made this
note, and had it signed ty the defendant,
James Lecompte. as an accommodation
endorser.
In
named Ingram, who is a broker and
all agent for Mr.. Eliason, professional
note>shaver. Mr.. Lore went to Mr.. In
gram, and Mr.. Ingram, as agent for Mr..
Eliason, shaved this $1,000 note giving
him $l,800. Mr.. Lore afterwards be-
came so embarrassed that his worldly eff
fects were seized upon, and be became
unable to meet the note. MIR. Lecompte,
who was merely an accommodation en-
dorser, was held responsible by the hold
er Of the note but payment was refused
because of its being shaved at usurious
rates. Tile note was afterwards renewed
and divided in two notes of $1,000 each.
Chas. b. Lore, Esq, counsel for the de-
fendant, made an able argument, en-
deavonng to fix upon the minds of the
jury the illegalty of the proceedings, and
the fact that usury is in direct violation
of the laws of the State.
The counsel for the plaintiff, Mr.. Rod
neg, spoke for considerable length of
time. The bent of his argument went
! to show that it was not the $4,000 note;
that had nothing to do with the case; but
it was upon the new notes that satisfac-
ton was demanded.
The judges charge to the jury was
| brief. He said that usury was the taking
| of more than per cent. ON the loan OF
money. Where over that amount is TAX
ca the State imposes fine on all who
violate this law, whether he be the usur-
or or the bona JIde purchaser. When a
paper is drawn in opposition to this stat
ute it becomes immediately yoid-worth-
less; and where a man purchases such
notes, it matters not if he is innocent OF
the breach of law--he runs the risk and
cannot recover unless the maker or en-
dorser sees fit to honor the claim. This
is the law, and it is for you, the jury to
weigh well the evidence and sec If the
law has be broken.
| Tho jury returned about 10 minutes
past six with verdict in favor 0fthe de-
| fendant, the accommodation endorser.
Mr.. Lore, counsel for the defence in
| the case of State vs.. litter for forgery
applied for q new trial, on the ground
| that the name written by the parties on
the witness stand was given to the jury
to compare with the handwriting on the
alleged forged notes, in violation of law
| on the subject.
The Court agreed to listen to further
| argument on the subject.
Richard Mccormick was sworn in as
security for the appearance of Whitiock
at the next term of Court, for the amount
of $10,500
The following named persons were re-
leased from "durance vile :" John Wat.
ters, Annie Collins, VIM. Mckinley,
Daniel Matthews, Frank j. Scholl, Sam
uel Worten, Martha Wood, Elizabeth
Bayard, Fisher Gordon Geo. Green, ELIAS
1 Jackson, Jas. McDermott, Frank Burg
less. sf
| John Gilchy was arraigned for assault
with intent to kill Barrett ID. Conner, on
| the 25th of November, in New Castle
1 Hundred, pleaded not guilty.
Chas. Resin and Samuel Pryor, OF
White Clay CreekHd., were arraigned fol
theft of corn from James Mansfield, or
November 10Th, 1877. They plead moi
guilty.
Mr.. Vallandigham asked permission
| to file a motion for new trial ia the case
| of State VS. James Gilmore, for selling
liquor without license. The reasons why
| a new trial was asked for were that the
case was tried in this absence OF himself
Mr.. Gilmore and his witnesses, and the
man sentenced. Mr.. Vallandighan
read Sec. 7, article 1st OF the constitution
which says: "The accused hath right
to be heard by himself and his coun
sci, to be plainly and fully informed Of
the nature and cause of the accusation
against him to meet the witnesses II
their examination face to face"
Tho Court refused to grant the reques
and advised him to "appeal to Caesar,
meaning His Excelleney, the Governor
The reasons of refusal were that Jame
Gilmore was notified that his refusing
to come was not the care Of the Court.
aud the above quotation referred only t.
criminal cases and not to misdemeanors
The Court adjourned until IL O clocl
noon on Monday next.