The daily gazette., 1883-05-17
SECOND EDITION
THE SUPERIOR COURT
An Interesting Note Case on
Trial.
STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY
SUPERIOR COURT.
fmalIey vs.. Pritchard-A Charge of Usury-
COMMUNICATING TeatinnnY.

fimalley vs.. Prltchard-A Charge of Usury-
Contradicting Testimony.
The Superior Court assembled this morn
ing with Chief Justice Comegys and associ-
ate Justices Wootten, Houston and Wales
ON the bench.
After calling up several cases the case Of
William F. Smalley VS.. George and Joseph
2ritchard was placed upon trial. Henry X
Pennington, ESQ.,, for plaintiff and james j..
Vallandigham for the defendant. Two OF
The jurymen were challenged. The case Is
AN acton of assumpsit on q promissory
note by the indorsee or holder against the
Ilayee or indorser. The amount Of the note
being for $3.50.
Mr.. Pennington opened the case for the
plaintiff by explaining that the note was one
given by William Dickinson to George and
Joseph Prichard, for $3.50, and assigned TO
William F. Smalley. He then offered the
note in evidence.
Daniel Green, Teller and Notary Public of
the Newport National Bank sworn-Iden
titled the note; the note was protested on
the 5th day of July and notices of protest
were sent 10 e. Kinney of the New Castle
Bank; the note came from the
New Castle Bank for collection. The
Cross examination brought out
no material point other than the note had
been frequently renewed
receiving notices OF protest and his forward
ing them to George and Joseph Prtchard
from Christiara.
Cross-examiued: 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, aud 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 eXIorted; in the first case Sl4
was demanded for three months interest.
Upon the second renewal of the note $3.50
was demanded, and for two other renewals
IS each was given. Mr.. Vallandigham ex-
planned me law of usuTy 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 it; witness testi-
fed to making two payments of 81
aud So before the first note came due
and two payments of S4.50 and s. before
the second note came due On the Other
oecasious s. was paid. All the money wa,
for interest and not payments on the note
The note was protested year before the ac
tiOn was brought.
Cross-examination-W Witness related {
conversation in January, 1879, at Smalley',
mill. Mr.. Smalley said that there wa,
money in buying horses and feeding them
He said he would loan witness Sl5O il
Joseph and George Prichard would indOrst
note for them. He said that
he would like to have good
rate of interest, and pei
cent. would not pay Linn. The Prichards
indorsed TO note and Mr. Smalley gave me
the money: about four weeks after witnes.
gave him - and short time before tn,
note came due s. more. Both payments
were Tor interest. Have no receipt Tor tn,
money There was certainly something
said about interest at the time the conver
sation about oaning the money took place
Joseph Pritchard, sworn-testified to BIZ
indorsement of the note and his payint
Smalley IS as interest money.
On account OF the mistake in summonna
witness the case was stopped for short
time.
Mr. Hofecker then asked the
court to fix a time to hear argument
whether certain egacics should be charged
against certain real estate OF John Chandler,
decreased.
The case Of Smallcy VS.. Prltchard, was
then resumed, Mr.. Pennington Offering re-
butting testimony.
William + Smalley, recalled, testified to
D!ckhson's pleading for the loan of the
money. The word interest was never men
toned and never a.ked any, | was To
have One-halt the profits in the cattle trans
actions, he came hack alter a snort time
and gave witness 81 with the remark "this
Is your share Of the profit" He has never
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 iaile,
to sh Ike the witness previous testi
mony. He cOntradicted the witness Dick
inson, point blank, in nearly every par
ticular.
Theodore Ruth, sworn-Aftrr some oh
lection the witness was allowed to proceed
Had conversation with Dickinson, at Ogle
town, ii relation to a divisional profits will
Smalley, and Dickinson said he had giveI
Smalle} eI4, as payment on his share 0
his profits. Dickinson said nothing abou
interest. He also said at a later time he ha,
paid about $50.
Cr9ss-examination- Dickinson said 1t wa
700 much TO pay, and Sualley was no irien
10 poor man.
The cyide ce at this point closed.
Mr.. Pennington addressed tn jury, review
ing the evidence and commenting thereo
as ne proceeded, aud spoke OF their being n
denial Of the execution Of the note. Tb
right he had to sue the indorser instead {
the maker and his reason being that Dckir
was not worth the money. Mr.. Peningto
quoted authorities to prove that there mu.
be direct or indirect agreement that tn
borrower must pay the lender higher rat
than that which is le al. Mr.. Pennington
claimed there was no agreement as to an Il
legal rate OF interest.
Mr.. Nalludigham closed for defense b
claiming there was no agreement of partn n
sdp between plaintiff and defendants
quoting authority in support OF his point
II there MAS partnership aud he evidence wa
true, Small ) could not sue the iudorsers q
the note, and chry have no right of actio
against them. Mr.. Va'lIndigham addresset
the jury, claiming that usury had been full
and e9nelusively proven. Al the conclusion
OF Mr.. Naliaudigham' s argument, the cour
adjourned until 3 o'clock this afternoon.
q