MATTBTEWS D. WARNER. 463 �of Nathan, only exceptiug one note, of $6,000, which had been indorsed by Edward for the accomodation of Nathan, which was net one of the notes intended to be secnred by said bond and mortgage; that Edward was induced by these false representations to assent to the transfer of the bond and mortgage to Upham, and to the exchange of the railroad bonds for this original security. It repeats that the whole transaction was void for usury, and adds that the mortgage had become of no value (meaning by the depreciation of real estate) before the exchange was made. To the amended bill an appropriate answer was filed, denying fraud and knowl- edge, and insisting on the validity of the transaction. �The evidence tends to show that tho bonds in controversy were, at one time, the property of Edward Matthews, and, excepting 50 per cent, of the Memphis & Little Eock bonds, the title to which is not traced, were a part of a larger number by him assigned to his brOther, W&tsbn Matthews, in trust for Mrs. Matthews, his wife, the now plaintiff, as security for an indebtedness, the amount of which is not stated, of the hus- band to the wife, and that they were afterWards sold at auction by the trustee, and bought in by J. Brandon MattheWs, the plaintiff's son, for her account. AU this time the bonds were in the hands of pledgees, and there was no delivery of them to Mrs. Matthews, «nd no notice to the holders, but the traiis- fei-s were on paper only. Afterwards,bysome persOn unkno^n, a part of the Carolina Central bbnd& were redeomed, and were put in the safe of a deposit company which was hired by Mrs: Matthews, and of which she and her son had keys, but her hueband had nohe. Other' bonds were placed in the same safe' from time to time. Whenever Edward Matthews wished to sellor pledge anyof these bonds he did so, his son furnieh-' ing them on demand. Others were afterwards substituted, and then again Used as ildward's occasions might require, and so on. -i ';> : �Where the money came irorii that Edward had borfowed' of his wife does not appear, and there is no evidenc'e ' that the bonds were her separate property, except as that I9 to be inferred from the general' statetueilt that they were hers. ' ��� �
