Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1838-09-17


f i.s a." 90 :;s Guy,
. ,s..; ; sss;;s e.s i, ri ~ s:::'
'',s orleans S;;s: e. So, ,, g
and the Trade aisinclinsd to buy
real Pot Ashes lower q, has been accepn for
Pea. 5s 100 10 S s'
90 JOS 81 fss new and SIS cd for old Imports Ihe sale
trade.
SUPERIOR CoURT, Saturday.-Before Chief Justice
Jones. William IL Gregory vs.. Joseph Wallace.
rms was an acton on prOmlsory note, dated
Sept Is, 1886 twelve menlhs for 1878 TO- pa yable
10 the defendants order endorsed by him 10 the
plalnf-and subsequently endorsed by the pla htiff
TO f. Bleedgood, Jr., and James Petite Sc Sons.
The note was admitted, and the plaintiff here
rested.
Defence-fraud.
The circumstances of the are, briefly, as fol-
lows I'm August 1886 the plaintiff called upon the
defendant, and told him he had made an arrangement
TO purchase farm al Ithlca Tempkins' County, ~.
r., from Mr. Mccormick, for the sum of $50 600
and that ne was to have the refusal until the lst of
October then next ensuing He further told the de-
ieRdant that he had no interest in the property but
that he shoald like to take share in il, and then
suggested to defendant that he should assist him in
the purchase as II was first rate speculation.
After two or three meetings with the defendant, in
all of which he represented to him that he was
bona fde purchaser of the land. and that he was
paying TO Mr.. Mccormick $50 0G0-while, in point
of fact, he was only giving $4,000, and pocketng
10000. The defendant, relying upon the correctness
OF the plaintiffs statements consented TO come into
the operation. There were TO be twenty shares
each share at the price of $4,000 Each party was TO
give bond and mortgage to Mr. Mccormick for
$1,000, and three notes at three, SIX, and twelve
months, for the other $4,000 Thee was TO be
lottery of the shares-and at the drawing thereof the
parties TO the contract were TO give Their bonds and
mortgages and the notes. Ii was proposed by the
plaintiff that the bonds and mortgages and notes were
to remain in the hands of Mr.. A. ST. John, Cashier
Of the Bank of IIhica, until the bonds and mortga-
gcs were paid and the notes taken up, when deed
was to be given by Mr.. Mccormick.
The defendant paid the two first notes without any
suspicion of the false representations of the plaintiff.
Before the third note fell due of fraud reached
the of the defendant. 1t was thought by some
be good ioke-by others, TO pe a great fraud. The
plaintiff, instead OF paying Mr. Mccormick in cash,
gave him some OF the bonds and mortgages he had
received from The parties this purchase and Others
on land in Pennsylvania, not worth cent. Some
Of the unfortunate subscribers had paid all Of their
notes.
The defendant called for the production Of the con-
tract The plaintiff objected to the reading of il.
The court overruled the objection, on the ground
that the defence being fraud and the being
part of the transaction out of which the fraud had
grown, the defendant had a right to read il in evl
dence.
Stephen Mack called for the defence. Examined
by DIR. Cutting Is counsellor a, law; resides at
Ithaca; knows the plaintiff and Mr. Mccormick;
drew the agreement or contract now in his hand, be-
tween plaintiff and Mccormick, for the sale of his
farm at Ithaca After il was signed the plaintiff took
il away; II was dated 81 June, 1885, made between
Jacob nj. Mccormick and The plaintiff, whereby Nc.
Cormck, In consideration of one dollar to him paid
by the plaintiff, agreed TO make and deliver TO the
plaintiff, or any person or persons whom he shall de-
ssgnate, deed or deeds, with a proviso that said
plaintiff was 10 pay him, McCormck, $50 600 there.
for, IN the following manner. Sl00C3 in notes, and
S4OOpO IN bends ana mortgage
The defendant established clearly the fraud.
On the part of the plaintiff, il contended that
II the plaintiff could show that al the ,ime the de-
endant took share IN the purchase Of the land IN
question: il was worth, viz $50 900, he was entitled
10 recover.
To support this position, number of witnesses
We're called, but there was much discrepancy in their
testimony on this point, viz as to the value Of the
land in August, 1886.
Ii was not even attempted TO be denied that the
plaintiff had given but ESQ 600 f,r the land.
After an able and elaborate charge by the Judge,
the jury under direction, brought verdict for the
defendant.
CoURT OF GEsEnAL SESSIONS, Saturday.-Preseni
His Homer the Recorder, Alderman Taylor and
De Forest
Robbery in The. frat degree.-Simen Peter Brown
was placed at the bar charged with highway robbery
IN knocking dewn James Campburn IN Orange street.
and robbing him Of pocket book, containing 50
The complainant aid not appear 10 testify. Two
wa,chmen named boss and Ross testified that they
heard man fall, and saw another man run up an
alley there they found the prisoner aud pocket
book lying on the ground near him. He denied the
robbery The Recorder said that i'm the absence of the
complalnant II was the duty OF the jury 10 be very
positive the robbery they coulI bring the prs
oser IN guilty Of the assault and battery, If they
pleased, withsut the robbery. The jury returned
verdict Of guilty Of assault and battery only.
Burglary. Samuel SULLIVAN was put upon trial
charged with breaking into the premises of David
Johnson, pa DIVISION street, between or o'clock
On the morning of the 18th August, by forcing the
trent door which secured by locks and bolts,
and stealing from the mill nery sundry articles
of wearing apparel. Part Of the property was found
NJ Governeur market, IN the possession OF Mr.. Goa
nU.
Thomas Conner, Assistant Alderman of the Tth
Ward, testified that a man. named Paul Cornell
nocktd al his door and told him that nv Lad taken
eat Of the deck bundle and presently after another
bundle, which he directed him to Keep ill he could
make inquiry. Cornell SAID ne a man throw the
things INTO the dock, and asked HIM why he replied
because things did not 90 right al home. lie said his
Ran,e was Johnson and some one had been into his
premises when he was abstnt He therefore broke
open his premises and destroyed the properly out 4
revenge in A. OF jealousy. Other witnesses test-
fed, among them Mrs. Johnson, n very pretty look
ing young woman dressed IN deep mourning. Some
Of the witnesses testified that SULLIVAN stated h IS
name was johnson, and he acted as he did because
SEINE person had been sleeping with h 5 wife. II APP
o. AIRED that Johnson had gonc TO SEA the day pre-
viuusly, and that Stiliman assumed hls name and de
destroyed Mrs John9on's property out # a Jealous
4 cIipo of whom I'D not trdeffy pprcar I'm The