
    
      T. Langford, bearer, vs. Amos Woodruff.
    
    Where, in an action on a promissory note, the defence was usury, and the borrower was sworn, and stated that the note sued on was given for another note renewed at twelve and a half per cent interest, a verdict for the principal of the note sued on, with interest and costs, was set aside and a new trial ordered.
    Wherever the lender is alive, and he suffers the borrower to be sworn, the facts stated by him, it would seem, ought to be credited by the jury.
    
      Before Evans, J. at Spartanburg, Spring Term, 1844.
    This was an action on a promissory note, to which the defence was usury. The defendant was sworn to prove the usury. He stated, that some six or seven years before the trial, he gave the payee a note for sixty or seventy dollars, payable at the end of the year. At the' end of the year he purchased from him about ninety dollars worth of cotton, and gave him a new note for the old one, with interest counted at twelve and a half per cent, and the amount of the cotton. Upon this note, when due, there was a payment, but he did not know how much, and a new note given for the balance. This note was renewed from year to year, and interest always computed at twelve and a half per cent. Previous to the last renewal, he purchased from the payee a wagon, at. forty dollars, and a threshing machine, Which were incorporated into one of the renewals. Upon this debt he paid one hundred dollars. The presiding Judge reported that the defendant stated, expressly, that the note was renewed every year, and interest computed at twelve and a half per cent. But the account which he gave of the payments was so vague, that it was impossible to ascertain what was still due of the principal. Under these circumstances, the jury found for the plaintiff the whole amount of the note.
    The defendant appealed, on the ground,
    That the verdict was contrary to the evidence, it having been expressly stated, and not contradicted, that twelve and a half per cent was charged, and constituted a part of the note sued on,
    Perry, for the motion.
   Curia, pet

Evans, J.

In cases of usury, the borrower is a competent witness, but if the lender will swear to the contrary, he is entitled to preference. Whenever the lender is alive, and he suffers the borrower to be sworn, the facts stated by him, it would seem, ought to be credited by the jury. It is stated in the report, that the account he gave of the payments was so vague, that it was impossible to ascertain what was due of the principal. This was, probably, a sufficient reason why the jury should find the whole note, but he clearly proved that the note had been renewed at twelve and a half per cent interest. This is usury, and’ the finding of the jury, allowing interest and costs, was contrary to law. The motion for a new trial is granted.

Richardson, O’Neall, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.  