
    Brisbane against Lestarjette.
    
      August 30, 1790.
    The indorsee cannot ivco ver on a note, given for an illegal consideration* if lie appears to have know n of it; oi’ i? he cannot f-hew that he gave a valuable consideration for it.
    CASE on a note of liand^given by defendant, and indorsed to plaintiff.
    The defendant admitted the note, but gave evidence that it was given when the British army were in Charleston, and when the parties were within their power and jurisdiction. That the defendant was arrested by process from the British hoard of police, and being unable to pay 'the sheriff’s fees, he gave this note for the amount of those fees. That the plaintiff indorsee was present at the time, and knew the consideration of the note to be such. The plaintiff did not shew that he had paid any person valuable consideration for the note.
    Fraser, for the defendant,
    insisted, that the note veas given on an illegal consideration, the British board of police having-been repeatedly adjudged in this court an illegal bod}’, and all acts done under their authority void. The plaintiff was present, and knew the illegal and oppressive circumstances under which the note was obtained. He cannot be considered as an innocent indorsee, when he took it with his eyes open.
    Pinckney, contra,
    contended, that it was a plain negotiable note, which appears to have been regularly indorsed, and is good under the statute. That however improperly the police, its officers, or suitors might have acted, the plaintiff had no agency in the business. He took it on the footing of its negotiability.
   Waties, J.

When a note appears to have been given for an illegal consideration, the indorsee cannot recover if he appears to have known it; nor unless he prove that he gave valuable consideration for it.

Verdict for defendant.  