
    George R. Gaither v. William Lee.
    In an action by the indorsee against the acceptor of an inland bill of exchange, the indorser is a competent witness for the defendant to prove usury in the plaintiff’s discounting of the bill.
    If a hill be drawn, accepted, and indorsed for the purpose of raising money upon it in the market for the use of the payee, and be put into the hands of a broker who obtains the money from the plaintiff upon it, at four per cent, per month discount, the transaction is usurious and the bill void.
    Assumpsit, against the acceptor of a bil drawn by John "Wells, Jr. upon the defendant, and by him accepted payable to James Hodnett, or order, on the 29th of March, 1819, and indorsed by him and A. Mclntire, for $350. The bill, having seventy-five days to run, was put into the hands of Mr. Nicholls, a broker, to raise money upon it for tfie use of the drawer. Mr. Nicholls procured the money upon it from the plaintiff, discounting $25 for the seventy-five days.
    
      Mr. Marbury, for the defendant,
    offered Hodnett and Mclntire, the two indorsers, as witnesses to prove usury; and cited Braud v. Ackerman, 5 Esp. Hep. 119: Chitty on Bills, 397, and Jordaine v. Lashbrooke, 7 T. R. 601.
    
      Mr. Key, contra.
    
    Those cases were decided upon the ground of state policy ; but in this country the decisions have been contrary ; namely, that a party on a note shall not he admitted to give evidence to destroy it. Coleman v. Wise, 2 Johns. 165.
    
      Mr. Ashton, in reply,
    contended that the witnesses were competent to show any thing subsequent to the execution of the note, that would invalidate it. He admitted the bill to be good in its execution.
    The CouRT (nem. con.) overruled the objection and admitted the testimony.
    
      Mr. Marbury, for the defendant,
    then prayed the Court to instruct the jury, that if they should be of opinion, from the evidence, that the bill was drawn, accepted, and indorsed for the purpose of raising money upon it in the market, and was put into the hands of Mr. Nicholls by Mr. Hodnett, for that purpose, who procured the money from the plaintiff' upon it, discounting $25 upon $350, the amount of the bill, which had seventy-five days to run, the transaction was usurious, and the bill void.
   Which instruction

the Court

(Moesell, J., contra,,)

gave, upon the authority of the two cases cited by Mr. Marbury, namely, Jones v. Hake, 2 Johns. 60, and Wilkie v. Roosevelt, 3 Johns. 66, 206.

Verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff took a bill of exceptions to the instruction of the Court to the jury, but not to the admission of the indorsers as' witnesses for the defendant. No writ of error was prosecuted. The cause stood several terms upon a motion for a new trial on the ground of misdirection of the jury, but it was never brought to a hearing, and at October term, 1821, the cause was struck off by the plaintiff.  