The daily gazette., 1883-05-18
nspalNrEp IRON yesrsaoAy
snpERInR CoURT.
S,,aIlev VS.. PrItchard--A Charge OF Usury-
Contradlcting Testimony.

SuaIley VS.. PrItchard-A OhAFb0 y. os~AS
Contradicting Testimony.
The superior Court assembled thursday |
with Chief Justice Comegys and associate |
rns,;ces Wootten, Houston and Wales |
on the bench.
After calling up several cases the case OF
William T. Smalley VS.. George and Joseph
Pritchard was placed upon trial. Henry H.
Pennington, ESQ.,, for plaintiff and james L;
Vallandigham for the defendant Two Oh
the jurymen were challenged. The case is
an acton of assumpsit on promissory
note nv the indorsee or holder against the
payee or iudorser. The amount oil the note
being for 500.
Mr. Pennington opened the case for the
plaintiff nv explaining that the note was one
given by William Dickinson to George ana
Joseph Priehard, for Sl50,and assigned TO
William f. Smalley. He then offered the
note In evidence.
the Newport National Bank sworn-lden-
titled the note; the note was protested on
the 18th day of July and notices OF protest
were sent to c. Kinney of the New Castle
Bank; the note came from the
New Castle Bank for collection. Inc
cross examination brought OUT
no material point other than the note nao
been frequently renewed.
William f. Smalley, sworn: Testified to
receiving notices of protest and his forward.
ing them to George and Joseph Pritchard
from Christiara.
Cross-examined: Did not recollect what
was the date mentioned in the protest. The
note had never been in bank when the wit
ness received it.
An objection about cross-examining wit
ness as to suing the maker about previous
note was sustained by the Court. The pro-
test was then offered In evidence.
The plaintiff at this point rested his
case, and Mr.. Vallandigham opened
for the defense by explaining the
note as an action against an
accommodating indorser. His defense would
be that throughout all this transaction there
had been usury extorted; in the first case S14
was demanded for three months interest
Upon the second renewal of the note $3.50
was demanded, and for two other renewals
S5 each was given. Mr. Vallandigham ex-
planned the law of usury that made the
usurer loss both principal and interest.
William Dickinson, sworn, testified to the
loan of the money aud plaintiff asking for
COOL interest on 1t; witness testi-
fed to making two payments of 50
and S. before the first note came due
and two payments Of $3.50 and IS before
the second note came due. On the other
occasions S. was paid All the money was
for interest and not payments on the note.
The note was protested a year before the ac-
tion was brought.
Cross oss-examination-Witne related a
conversation in January, 1879, at Smalley's
mill. Mr.. Smalley said that there was
money in buying horses and feeding them
He said he would loan witness el5o i
Joseph and George Prichard would indors'
note for them. He said tina
he would like to have goot
rate OF interest, and o pc
cent. would not pay him. The Prchard
indorsed to note and Mr. Smalley gave m
the money; about four weeks after witnes
gave him 50 and a short time before tn
note came due S. more. Both payment
were Tor interest. Have no receipt for tn
money There was certainly something
said about interest at the time the conver
saton about Ioaning the money took place
Joseph Pritchard, sworn-test6ed to bi
Endorsement of the note and his payin
Smalley IS as interest money.
On account OF the mistake in summonin
witness the case was stopped for shol
time
Mr.. Hoffecker then asked til
court to fix a time to hear argumeI
whether certain egacies should be charge
against certain real estate of John Chandle
deceased.
The case of smalley VS.. Pritchard, WI
then resumed, Mr.. Pennington offering r
butting testimony.
William f. Smalley, recalled, testified
Dickinson's pleading for the loan of tt
money. The word interest was never mel
toned and | never asked any. | was I
have one-half the profits in the cattle trani
actions. He came back after a snort tim
and gave witness 81 with the remark "thi
is your share of the profit" He has neve
paid witness over S22, and none of the 81
was taken as interest. There never was bu
but one payment in the marke
house. The cross examination faile
to shake the witness previous test
mony. He contradicted the witness Dicl
inson, point blank, in nearly every pa
ticulaT.
Theodore Ruth, sworn-After some O
lection the witness was allowed to procee
Had conversation with Dickinson, at Ogl
town, in relation to a division OF profits wi
Smalley, and Dickinson said he had Civ,
Smalley Sl4, as a payment on his share
his profits Dickinson said nothing abo
interest. He also said at a later time he HI
paid about $50
xamination-Dickinson said it W
too much to pay, and Smalley was no triel
to poor man.
The evideoce at this point closed
Mr.. Pennington addressed tn jury, reyie
ing the evidence and commenting there
as he proceeded, and spoke of their being
denial of the execution Of the note. L
right he had to sue the ndorser instead
the maker and his reason being that Dick
was not worth the money. Mr.. Peningt
quoted authorities to prove that there mi
be a direct or indirect agreement that
borrower must pay the lender higher II
than that which is lekal. Mr., Penningt
claimed there was no agreement as to an
legal rate OF interest.
MIR. Vallndigham closed for defense
claiming there was no agreement Of partn
ship between plaintiff and defendar
quoting authority in support of his poi
If there was partnership and he evidence v
true, Smalley could not sue the indorsers
the note, and :hey have no right OF act
against them. Mr. Vallandigham address
the jury, claiming that usury had been fll
and conclusiyely proven. At the conclusi
Of Mr.. Nallandigham' 's argument, the col
adjourned until 3 O'Clock .. m.
Delaware Medical Society.