1791-01-26 (static/transcriptions/1791/01/220.jpg)

(57.

Wednesday 26 January 1791
against Mathew Dawson Esq
Trial
in the truth & validity of the accot C. bec: if Mr. Dawson is not liable & the account is just, this man must be liable.
The case referred to which was decided in R. B. is that of Walton & others, assignees of Sutton,
agt
Shelley. 1 Term Rep. 296.
That was a in K. B. for a new Trial. The action was on a bond from Deft to Sutton
1 Plea non est factum. 2d Statute of Usury.
It was proved by one Wts for Deft that the bond was in conson of delivg up 2 Prom: Notes, payable to B. or order, one endorsed by B. 7 by D. Sedley, the other by B. & C & D. Sedley, to Sutton. D. Sedley was called to prove the conson for the notes usurious.
Obj. 1. That he was called to invalidate a security which he had given, and that an indorser of a note, independent of any question of interest, could not be permitted to prove a note void, which he himself had indorsed. 2dly That he was interested in the question, which was meant to be put to him; for if the notes were given for an usurious consideration,
he