Patent Right Note Vendors

For sovoral ycars tlio people of the soutliern counties of Michigan have been swindled by the vendors of patent rights who have by holding out certain inducementSj which were never intended to be fulfilled, becomo the possessors of note of hand which, afterwards transferred tó the hands of third partios, were held to be valid and the makers held Jiable to payment. In vain did the prcss Wam furmers of these sehemos. The -bëtter and more intelligent class, who read the pupers and protit by the advice theroin contamed, nevor get taken in: But there al ways is a certain proportioü of the population who do not from a penny-wise policy take a uewspaper, or take one whose only merit, if uierit it can be called, is in siokly-sentimental and milk-and water romances. Again, thore are others, wisc in theil own conceits, who, for tho sake of vast eonteiuplated proiits, will invest in almost any scheme. A case recen tly carne up befdre the Ber-. rien County Court, Judge Blackman presiding, wherein the question of the validity of a noto obtained by specious inducoments was decided. Tho case is reported at length in Judge Brown's " Michigan Misi tiius Cases," a work of great valae to all lawyers. Judge Blaokman held, substantially that a persoii who purchases a nöte payable to bearer, from the payeo, and awaro of the charaeter of the payee's bttsiness; that he is an unknown, traiisierft and irresponsible vendor of patents, and knowing the maker of the note to be fully resxjonsiblo, buys tho paper without asking any questions at a large discount, he can not bo considered a bviiajide holder. Further, a purchaser who is told that the: maker claims his note was given without consideration and will not pay it, is not a boii(ífile holder. The note sued cm was giren by John M. (ieyer, of Niles,.:to one l.yon for fouï hundred dollars. The facto, as brought' out in evidonce, were that Lyon sought out üeyer at his farm and induced hiin to accept, after much parleying, the agoncy of a new-fangled fanning mili. - The agreoment was that Gëyer was to' buy tho milis for fit'teen dollars and eell thom for fifty, and at tho expiration of a year to cali down to South Bend to settle. He was questioned about his property,' and finully signed what he tb.ought was a statement of the agreement, bnt which tvirntd out to be a note, the blanks of which were afterwards filled ont with tb.e 6um stated. No money or other consideration was passod, nor did Geyer eveï buy any of the fanning milis. Lyon dis-' posed of the note to one Fulton, who sold it at a great discount to Boyce, who' sought to recover by suit. The ultimato decisión was that Boyce, in purchasing the note, was knowingly participaiing with Lj'on in the profits of the fraud, and was not a bonafide