
    Clark v. Moses.
    When usury is pleaded, the plea ought to set forth the principal sum loaned, and the sum included for interest, that it may appear whether the contract be usurious or not.
    Ebeoe from tbe judgment of a justice of the peace. Moses brought- his action against Clark, on a promissory note, demanding £4.— Clark pleaded, that the note on which, etc. contained, by corrupt contract and agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, a greater sum than at the rate of £6 for the forbearance of £100 for a year; and also, that the plaintiff did, after the giving and executing said note, viz. in the month of July next after the date, make another corrupt contract and agreement with the defendant, to take and receive, and did take and receive, for the forbearance of the above note, more than at the rate of £6 for £100 — and that the same is therefore usurious and oppressive.
    There was no answer to this plea on record; and the judgment is recorded as follows: — • “ That the court having heard the witnesses, and considered the cause, is of opinion, and judgment is rendered, that the plea is not sufficient to bar the action, and that the plaintiff recover,” etc.
    To this judgment, three errors were assigned:—
    1. That the plea not being answered, stood demurred to of course; and the same ought to have been adjudged sufficient in law to have barred the plaintiff of his action.
    2. That the justice went into an inquiry of the facts, and finding them supported, resorted back to the plea, and judged that to be insufficient, which was sufficient.
    3. That by such kind of irregular decisions, the party can never know upon what principles judgment is given against him; and is deprived of the benefit of law, either in defending in his canse, or in obtaining redress, in case he is injured.
    The judgment of the justice affirmed.
   By the whole Court.

Nothing appears from the record, but that substantial justice is done between the parties, although the entry is informal. The defendant’s plea, in fact, was insufficient; because it did not set forth the principal pum loaned, nor the sum included in the note for interest and forbearance; so that it might appear whether the contract was usurious or not. It also appears from the record, that the justice heard the witnesses, and on consideration of the-case, gave judgment for the plaintiff;— from whence it may be concluded, that he found the defendant’s plea not only insufficient in law, but unsupported by evidence.  