Opinion
June Term, 1898.
Present — Barrett, Rumsey, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs on opinion of Beekman, J., in court below.
The following is the opinion of Beekman, J.:
The burden rested upon the plaintiff of showing by a preponderance of proof that the transaction complained of was corruptly made, with the intention on the part of the defendant of exacting a larger rate of interest than was permitted by the statute. It was entirely competent for the parties to enter into an arrangement for separate loans upon different articles, and such a transaction is not open to attack on the ground of usury, unless it is made to appear that it was merely colorable and a device to evade the statute. This, I think, the plaintiff has failed to show. Where a transaction may be open to two constructions the court will prefer the one which imports an innocent purpose rather than that which bespeaks a guilty one. Upon the whole evidence, as it seems to me, the most favorable view that could be taken for the plaintiff is that the proofs are evenly balanced, but even then there must be judgment against him because of a lack of preponderance in his favor. Had the two loans been simultaneously made, each on all of the articles pawned, a different case would have been presented. It follows that there must be a judgment for the defendant dismissing the complaint.