
    Samuel Jones versus Daniel Coolidge.
    In an action by an endorsee of a promissory note against one of two joint and several promisers, the other promiser was oífered as a witness to prove usu ry, the defendant having released him; but he was not admitted.
    Assumpsit on a promissory note, dated June 24th, 1807, by which the defendant and one Joel Wellington, jointly and severally, promised Levi Thaxter, to pay him or his order 448 dollars in six months with interest, which was endorsed by Thaxter to the plaintiff.
    At the trial, which was had upon the general issue before Parsons, C. J., at the sittings after the last October term, in this county, the signatures of the promisers and endorser being admitted, the note was read in evidence. The defence was usury, to prove which the defendant offered to swear Joel Wellington, the other promiser, he having released him. To this the plaintiff objected, on the ground that he was ignorant of the fraud, and that if a party to a fraudulent negotiable security could be a witness to defeat * it in the hands of an innocent purchaser, the tendency [ * 200 ] would be, not to suppress, but to encourage fraud. The chief justice refused to permit Wellington to be sworn, in order to have the question settled; and a verdict being returned for the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a new trial, upon the judge’s report.
    
      Bigelow, for the defendant,
    argued that Wellington ought to have been admitted, since the plaintiff, by bringing his action against Coolidge alone, had chosen to consider the note a several one, and thus to put Wellington wholly out of the case.
    
      Dana, for the plaintiff,
    cited the case of Churchill vs. Suter. 
      
    
    
      
      
        4 Mass. Rep. 156. — See also 3 Mass. Rep. 27, Warren vs. Merry.
      
    
   Per Curiam.

Let judgment be entered on the verdict.  