The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1901-11-30
SUITS ON FARMERS NOTES.
Judge Waters, at Belair, Decides
that Farmers Whe Gave Notes
to the United Milk Producers
Association Must Pay Them.

BELAIR, Nd, Nov. 26.-The Circuit Court
has been engaged for two days in the trial of
the cases of the Milk Producers Association
notes which passed into the hands of the Penn
National Bank of Philadelphia.
Suits were entered against several farmers
in Hartford, who gave their obligations as col
lateral for $50, 600 loaned to the Milk Produc-
ers' Association in the spring of 1900. W..
Burns Trundle, of Baltimore, assisted by Thorn.
as A Robinson, is counsel for the Philadelphia
bank. The plaintiff claims the loans made
had been recommended to the cashier of the
Penn National Bank of Philadelphia by Theo-
dore Wilcox, who was then cashier of the Old
Town Bank of Baltimore. Mr.. Wilcox wrote
to the bank asking for loan, and offered the
notes of the farmers aggregating S24, 900, as
collateral security He, it is alleged repre-
scented that the association was in prosper.
Gus condition and was making over $4,000 per
month. The bank agreed to discount the
notes, and the transaction was consummated,
and the proceeds went to the credit of the Old
Town Bank.
In the trial of the case today Mr.. Williams,
who, with William II. Harlan, represents the
farmers, offered to prove that the notes were
given by the farmers with the understanding
that they were to be paid in milk at tho rate
of per cent. month until the whole amount
MAS iquidated. The plaintiffs claimed that
parole evidence could not be introduced, and
Judge Waters, ruling on the point, said:
1.-The proposition advanced is inconsistent
with my ideas on the subject, and am unable
to reconcile them. In my opinion it is an en-
tirely different proposition from the one in
dorsed by Judge Alvey in '78 Md | do not
understand that the mere allegation of fraud
is suffcientto open all the doors and to let in
all kinds of evidence from which fraud may
be developed. In this case it is offered to in
troduce private agreement between the max
er of the note and the payee of the note, that,
although the note was regular and negotiable
on its face, there was an agreement that it was
to be paid in instalments of 5 per cent. That
is not fraud; it is merely changing the character
of the note and varying the contract by parole
evidence. 1t is very different from the con-
tract in the Hulless- Oats cases. where the
original contract was in itself fraudulent, and
in that case the offer of the defendant was to
prove that the plaintiff had knowledge of the
fraud. 1t seems to me that that case has no
bearing on this one. In the Hulless- Oats case
the contract was fraudulent at the start, and
the evidence admitted under the offer of the
defendant to prove that the holder of the note
past maturity took it with knowledge of the
fraud. and is entirely different from the note
in question. It is trying to prove that note
which was negotiable on lis face was in fact
not negotiable, but was to be paid in install
ments of per cent month, and the objec-
tons will be overruled.'i
Exceptions were taken to the court ruling,
and the case will likely be taken to the Court
of Appeals. There are a number of other
suits pending in Hartford, Carroll and Balti-
more counties that will be affected by this
case.