
    Harick vs. Jones.
    8 ® c P fr-c B § | m o J- Tfl ar. o o £•§ c 0,0 q^C off Ste. ^ ^ o p ££ g Cu r*-. fff o jr4 Hj»' C p ¡3 & - staff o ~ CO GO flj £.oc ^ O B < w p p SÜS a
    o g § jS *ti O ¡5" 0*20 jr^cre , ^ a> o o o 50 «?g¡. cu ¡3 cu I S' § 3 §5" •1^ ÍÍ g J JI s O' I p 2.*5- « 2.E.S2 $ "* 8 S-o
    This was an action on a promissory note for $300 by the indorsee against the drawer. The defence was usury and the question was- whether a person by the name of Willis, to whom the notes had been delivered by the drawer, in a contract charged to be usurious, was a competent witness in the suit of the present plaintiff against the drawer. The plaintiff having refused to swear to the usury, on the ground that he himself was ignorant of the facts, the defendant made himself a witness under the act, and objected to the evidence of Willis on the ground of interest. The Recorder of Charleston, however, before whom the cause was tried, admitted the evidence of Willis as well as that of the defendant. He charged the jury that they should look at the moment when the note was put forth to see whether it was contaminated with usury; that this was an accommodation note, ere ■ ated for the purpose of raising money; that if defendant sold it to Willis and obtained for it only one hundred dollars and a due bill for $125, the usury was clearly proved and the verdict should be for the defendant; but that if defendant had by his agent, Willis, sold the note to plaintiff and plaintiff had given Willis for defendant full value for it, it was not usury though Willis had retained the whole to himself, or thrown it into the sea; that this reduced the question to two points: 1st. Was Willis the defendant’s agent ? and, 2nd. Did plaintiff, if he were, give Willis full value for the note ? On the first question, be thought it was proved both by Willis and by the admission of plaintiff himself, that Willis was but an agent to procure the money on the note and not himself the lender, but left it to the jury to decide. On the second ground he told them that the full value of a note was not always the sum expressed on its face, but the sum it was bona fide worth and this was for them to say; that a note was a fair subject of bargain and sale and after fixing the true value of this in their minds they should say whether the payment to Willis for plaintiif was equivalent to that value, and if it was, there was no usury in the case.
    The jury found for the plaintiff, and an appeal was now taken up on the following grounds :
    1st. That the consideration given by Willis to Hariclc was the true consideration of the note, and that the evidence fully established the usury.
    2nd. That the defendant having proved that the plaintiff admitted to him that he had given to Willis a pipe of gin and one hundred dollars, and Willis having stated that he had received from Jones $100, a pipe of gin and merchandise for the note, it should have been submitted to the jury, that one of the questions to be decided by them was, whether they should credit the defendant, or Willis, whereas, no such qustion was submitted in the charge.
    3d. That Willis was an incompetent witness, having given the note in question to Jones, the plaintiff, in payment of articles furnished to himself, he became interested in sustaining the validity of the note.
    
      Echhard, for the appeal.
    Clarke, contra.
   Cuma per

Johnson, J.

The only ground which it is thought necesscry to notice and decide, is that which calls in question the competency of the witness, Henry Willis, to give evidence in the cause. The defendant’s own account of the transaction is that be contracted with the witness for the loan of $300 from which seventy live dollars were to be deducted for the forbearance for ninety days, and gave him a note for that amount, and received in consideration only one hundred dollars cash and the witness’ note at thirty days for $125. By the terms of the act against usury, the borrower, or party to an usurious contract, is declared to be a good and sufficient witness in law to give evidence of offences against this act,” &c. but it is provided that if the person or persons against whom such evidence is offered to be given, will deny on oath in open Court to be administered, the truth of what such evidence offers to swear against him, then such witness shall not be admitted to be sworn. The preamble of the act points most obviously to the policy as a clue to the meaning. It is apparent that by the terms “ person or persons against whom such evidence was offered to be given,” contained in the proviso, the Legislature intended to designate the party to the original contract, and not one who was necessarily ignorant of the transaction. Regarding Henry Willis then as the original party, and that is the footing on which the defendant puts his objection to his competency, and he was admissible under the act, and defendant ought not to have been permitted to be sworn, if Willis had offered to contradict on oath the facts to which he offered to swear. But this is no ground of complaint on the part of the defendant. The other grounds taken, present nothing more than the credibility of the defendant and the witness Willis; and although it is said that the Recorder did not submit the matter to the jury, it will not be believed that the counsel omitted to do so, and when the evidence was so directly opposed, it is impossible that the jury could have determined the case without deciding upon it. This disposes of the grounds stated; but there are other considerations arising out of the case, to the bene-lit oi‘ which, I think the defendant is entitled, especially as it appears from Willis’ own testimony, that he has practised on him one of the most gross and scandalous frauds that I have ever witnessed. It will be recollected that the defendant offered to swear and did swear that by the contract with Willis he was to give him $75 for the loan, and although Willis in his examination states generally that he acted as the agent of defendant in negocia-ting the note, he is not hardy enough to take upon-himself to deny the truth of this fact, and in this respect the oath of the defendant is not only uncontradicted, but, I think, fully sustained by the circumstances stated by Willis himself; for hé not only detained the $75, but he drank the gin and kept the other articles which he got from plaintiff in payment for the note I think too that there was error in charging the jury that the full value of the note was not always the sum expressed on its face, but the sum it was bona fide worth, and that a note was a fair subject of bargain and sale, and after fixing the true value in their minds, they should say whether the payment to Willis was equivalent to that value, and if it was, then there was no usury in the case.” I am not disposed ■to call in question the correctness of this rule, so far as it applies to notes originally founded on a legal consideration and sent into circulation; for nineteen twentieths of the commerce of the world is carried on through the agency of these and like securities, and when' once they are legally in the market, they become the fair subject of tiaffick. But to apply.it to the creation of a note, would strike at the very root of the statute against usury. The commercial value of negotiable paper, when in the market, is determined sometimes by the probable solveney of the drawers and indorsers; sometimes by their character for punctuality. The time and place of payment, «also have their influence ; sometimes they are sold ata discount, and often command a premium. The statute, however, makes none of these distinctions : loans to the rich and the poor, tjie prompt and the tardy, are all put on the same footing, nor is time or pace of any consequence, except so far as time is necessary to measure the amount of interest. Every contract reserving interest at a greater rate than seven per cent, per annum, is declared to be void. The Jury might then have been misled by this charge, and for these reasons a new trial is granted.

New trial granted.  