The herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1835-1837, 1836-01-16
TRIAL OF MRS. M,KINLEY.

GENERAL SESSIONS, Thursday-Preseut the Reco
der-Aidermen Ferris and Benson.-Mrs. Mary M'Kir
ley, was put upon her trial for obtaining goods unde
false preiences from several merchants i'm this cit,
among whom was MIR. Edward Hardy the complainant
IN the present The counsel for the defence re
serving the right of challenging the jurors as thew wer
called each were asked separately If they had iorme,
any opinion &c. sc. Several were rejected but
panel was at length formed and MIR. Paterson opened
the case in speech of great force and argument ane
one which evidently made strong impression on al
present
MIR. Edward Hardy, lateof 1870 Pearl street, but now
doing business at No. Is Cedar street, testified that Mrs
Mkinley came to his in the early part of Februa
r 1885, and made purchases rather selected goods
to the amount of $40 $50 and she left the store will
the intention OF returning shortly, and increasing he
ON. on the fth oil February she again came and
ected large quantity of goods, large in the opinion
oil Mr. Hardy that his anxiety SELL visbly decreased
which being perceived by Mrs. MKinley, she com
menced stating her circumstances. She stated that
she was doing prosperous business-that she was
perfectly good and SOlvent-hat she owned the house
in which she doing business besides other proper.
y-that she is we'll known in Philadelphia and that all
qnlries made there respecting her. would be satisfied
Mr. Hardy did not by words express any doubts as 10
her ability, and her statements concerning herself and
circumstances, were entirely voluntary ner part
The goods were sold credit of six months and al.
though the time has expired the bill is not vet paid
Cross-examnod by Mir. Price for the defence.-We
must here observe that this crossexaminaon was one
he
Believes Mrs. MIX. did not leave the city between the
hrst and second visits to his STORE He did not urge her
to make larger purchase. The second time she came
he was rather Indifferent she selected as he thought
too many articles Of one kind and altogether the stock
she selected was in his opinion large for any retail
st0re-she refused 10 give her at her first visit
alleging that she never did so-wOud not have made
so large sale without representations-made no in
qulrIes respecting her sovency-lt is about 9 years
since he first knew her-she was then doing business
K ha bae
twice before to her-once order through his agent
Mr. Page in Philadelphia, and another bill on her own
account when he was in Philadelphia in 1834-has
heard that MIR. Mkinley was watch maker, doing a
good business in Philadelpha-did not tell her at any
time that be had heard we'll of her standing fro,l his
agent Mr. Page, that he wished increase his bill
Mr. Pages information respecting Mrs. NIX, had no
influence on him at the time of the last sale. Mr. Price
here produced bill and receipt for $780, instead of $40
or $50 stated by MIR. Hardy, to be the probable
amount of the second bill he had ever sold herdid moi
send on to Philadelphia for the recovery of his
debt-drew draft Mrs. NIX for the amount due him
and sent it 10 Dir. Page for collection committee Of
merchants was appointed in Philadelphia to inyesti-
gate the of her ailure-Mr Page did not confer
with the c0mmtee-never heard that she had offered
TO assign all the goods in her store for the benefit of her
credors-has heard that SO cents on the dollar were
offered to all her Creditors but that rs was asked
IN New fOrk-ths offer was made subsequent TO the
offer OF assgnment-he made the affidavit against Mrs
Nj X. IN Mr.. Maxwell offce-Messrs. Ballad Stewart
Alorange and Stokes present-has said that if the
trial went against Der, she would be in bad situation
and would be likely to go to the State Prison for it
spoke the above words in presence o and in company
with Mr. Carter also one Of the credors-has signed
paper with other of the creditors proposing TO
bear share of the expense consequent uponhe pro-
secatIon-tAe amount was between $500 and $500.
Re-examined by Mr.. Patterson When the goods
were sold in March 1884 ,er firm was then Mrs. Sny-
der q Son-after her marriage did business under her
present name-he offer of compromise was rejected but
the creditors stated that they would take the property
and be satisfied of her honest intentions, if it only paid
ten cents Oh the dollar. -..
MIR. Patterson then read marriage settlement be-
tween Mary Snyder and Edward M'Kinley, in which
was mutually covenanted that neither should BE- re-
spohsbe tor the debts of the other Several records of
Judgment were also read in evidence by Mr. Patterson
AT s O'Clock fbe court took a recess of one hour.
At O'Clock the court met pursuant to adjournment,
aud the trial was resumed by calling =
Dir. Peter w. Wfbank, one of the committee Of
merchants above mentioned being duly sworn testified
that he resides in Philadelphia, is of the Grm of
Wiltbank & Co, has known Mrs. MIX. for five years
she carried the general retail dry goods business
but principally dealt in corset making-was creditor
of Mrs. MK-in 1885 Mrs. MIX. bought largely of
wness-In February 1885, she gave her note for S440
at months, which fell due on the Both of August and
was protested-before the note for $40 became due,
witness sold her bill of about 800 more-during one
of the numerous interviews which he had with her
specng the nonpayiaent of this note at maturity, she
verbal order for five of the goods previously
purchased which he refused to act upon and suffered
it to pass il might
AT this part Of the testimony, long and warmly con
tested argument commenced between the opposing
counsel, the legality of Mr. WiIibank's testimony
His honor the Recorder, after weighing with critical
accuracy the arguments pro and CON- and reading and
quoting variety of'legal authorities the subject
at the Fall Of Man." and ending with the
recent revolution in Texas not forgetting description
of the various kinds of government extant decided that
Mr.. Wilthnnk might BE- examined. -