Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1838-01-22

The following case in addition TO those we have al
ready complete fall and accurate return of all the
trials that have occurred both in the Superior Court,
and the Common Pleas during the week. Neither
The Circuit Court the Sessions Court the United
States District Court are in Session, should
also have given the important trials in them.
SUPERIOR CoURr, January 20.-Beforc Judge Tall
madge.
Seiras u.s. Pei We stated on Saturday that the
amount sought be recovered in this case $780,
with interest from the year 1928 up 10 the present
time. This case was an admirable exenp!Ificaion Of
the "law's DELAY" Six able lawyers hav ng been
engaged more or less for the space of 10 years IN
order TO decide TO whom the paltry Of $500 be-
longed. The two principal witnesses, Dey and Thomp-
son, were lawyers, and the documentary testimony
read To the Jury, also that OF lawyers.
Dudley Seldcn and Cutting wire engaged an
tagonsi counsel, and there as usual great deal
said about fraud AMI speculation, and contrlvance and
connvance and rascaiiy, and reimbursement; and
the time of the court and jury was consumed for two
days and at last n verdict rendered by the jury
(who did not leave court,) for Mr. Seixas to the
amount Of 1922 46 being the principle and nerier-
est up 10 the present period.
The facts Of the case re IN nut shell. In 1898,
Pell who the owner part owner OF four houses
wished to dispose OF them for Sl9 400 A Mr. Buck
nor had loaned money them by way Of mort,
gage, as also had tn Equitable Insurance Company;
those mortgages were becoming due, somewhere about
the 20 h of November 1923. There was an agreement
originally entered into for the sale and purchase Of
this property between Dir. Thompson, lawyer, Mr.
Pell and Mr.. Rucknor.
Afterwards Mr.. Scixas agreed to stand in iheplace
of Mr.. Bucknor, and employed Mr.. Dey "a his attor
new in the business Mr.. Dey had speculaied 10 =
great extent in real estate for the plaintiff Sexas and
others and he agreed TO purchase the interest OF Pe
i, this property for Scixas one clause OF the agree
ment stated that $3.50 shoald be ceposei with Mr.
Treup; another clause stipulated that Pel should pay
off the mortgages, remove the membranes, and
make the title the property good by the 18th Nov
1888 As soon as this was done, the $500 was 10
h. paid 10 Pell by Tfoup who held IL as deposit
II Pel failed 10 complete he part of the bargain,
by that time the same was 10 be considered rs nui
and void And IL al that time, Seixas did not com
pIele his part Of the bargain or contract by paying
the balance Of the purchase money, he was 10 forfeit
md los. the $500 he had deposited with Troup. Mr.
Dey stated that ut the time appointed, he and Sexas
went TO Pell with the rest OF the purchase money
fully prepared and willing to pay the same and close
the bargain in good filth Pell said he was ready
and they all agreed 10 a postponement OF the bns-
ness for twenty -foHr hours.
When they met on the following day, Dir. Bucknor
either would not or could not give Mr. Seixas good
and sufficient certificate 10 the effect that ne would
not foreclose the mortgage he held on the property
go that Seixas might in any event be Undermined
from any loss Mr.. Sexas then claimed the $500 dc.
post money from Troup, and insisted that II should
bo returned 10 him, as he meant TO withdraw himself
entirely from the contract having right 80 70 do,on
account of Pe and Bucknor failing TO comply with
the ~rigisa terms Of the same. ,.
Now, however, arose the funniest and most anus
inc part of the whole transaction. Trosp would not
give II up 10 Mr. Seixas. He however, not consider
mo himself entitl ed TO keep II in toto, pad into the
hands of Pelps lawyer, for Pell. Mr.. Pell then APP
Piled for and obtained an injunction sganst selxas
pealcd 10 the Vice Chancellor the latter however
rave ,hs Same decision in the matter that the than
ceIlor did or affirmed his decision. This was demar
red 10, and the whole case was once more brought be.