Drake v. Watson

4 Day 37

Opinion

By the Court.

This is an action qui tarn, brought an the statute entitled “ An act for restraining the taking of excessive usury.”

Footnotes

•

(b) There is a variance between thé contract declared on and alleged to be usurious, and the cohtract offered to be proved on the trial. The evidence did not support the issúe, and was with pro- . priety rejected by the court.

A moiety of the forfeiture, if recovered, would belong to the public treasury; and where such is the'case, the prosecution is limited to one year after the offence ⅛ committed.(a) More than one year, in this case, had elapsed, from the time of the supposed offence. The right of recovery on the statute was gone; and the plaintiff was not entitled to amend.

New trial not to be granted.

4) Stmt. Com. tit. 17®,

•

Stat. Conn. tit. 101. c. 1. s. 1.