
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1809.
    Bostick, Assignee of Wood, v. M’Claren and Borders.
    Where a note, under seal, was given for an illegal consideration, it was declared that, as both parties had acted illegally in the transaction, neither could be intitled to the countenance of - a court of justice.
    Motion for a new trial from Spartanburg district. Debt on a promissory note, under seal, tried before Wilds, J. Defendant pleaded that the note was given for an illegal consideration, viz., that the payee of the note should not give evidence against A. Champion, who was indicted for stealing a negro. The plea was supported by evidence, yet the jury found for the plaintiff, though the judge charged in favor of the defendant on the law.
    
      Note. The objection that a contract is immoral, or illegal, as between plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of a defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed ; but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, as it may bo said. Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. The court will not lend its aid.
    Gist, for the defendants,
    on the motion for a new trial, said that the judge, who presided in the District Court, notwithstanding he instructed the jury properly as to the law, had expressed very strongly his disapprobation .of the defendant’s conduct, which might have induced the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff.
    Johnson, for the plaintiff.
   Per curiam.

Bay, J., declared the resolution of the court, May 6, 1809. The parties both acted illegally in the transaction, and neither are intitled to the countenance of a court of justice ; and in pari delicto, potior est conditio defendentis.  