Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1838-02-13

II was shown in evidence that Messrs Seaman d
Wilson partners as brokers; that at the urgent
request Of Frost they lent him first the sum Of $1,000
on his check then the further sum 1851; and last
", the sum Of $500.
II was further shown that an interest Of half per
cent per day had been given on the second check;
this was only shown, however, by the third check
itself; for from the 18th OF January 1885, 10 March
1897 the period of settlement the interest of half per
cent a day, would amount 10 the same as the third
check, viz. $500
On the part of the plaintiff il commended that for
whatever usurious rate of interest had been paid on
the second check, il could not affect the rst cheek
for $1,000.
Mr.. Wilson mad been partner with Seaman; ne
afterwards went into partnership with Temple Fay,
because Fay had $4,000 TO lend ont and would give
plaintiff all he could makeover one quarter per cent
day.
The Judge charged that as the jury had heard the
evidence, he would not comment on It further than to
say that on charge of usury II was unnecessary Tor
the defendant to make oat his case
The jury decided that he had done so, and found a
verdict for the defendant.
Counr OF SESSION, Monday, Feb. l2.-Wm. Mac
Alroy was tried for stealing cloak, worth $780, from
the Pacific Hotel.
The prisoner made no defence. II was as cool a
robbery as we have heard of for some time. The fell
low boarded at the Pacific Hotel, and had hardly a
dollar to bless himself with. One morning he rose
rather early-went down 10 the bar ROOM and called
"What have | to pay?"
"Wha have you had2' said the boy.
"a bed and no breakfast"
"Half dollar!' says the boy.
"Now hand me my cloak
(which is it 2" said the boy.
"That new blue cloth one with velvet collar"
The bow handed il to him. He cleared out, and
sold il for IS. He was found gnllty.
In the ease of the peoolc versus Thomas Seaman,
Mr. Austin, on whem the assaultwa committed, ap.
with har
Mr. Wilson, after brief but sententious recaptua-
ton to the court of the facts connected with the
above case, moved for the Judgment of the law there
on against the defendant. 1t may be recollected that
Mr.. Seaman, in November, 1886 pcrpetrated most
daring and arocious violence upon the person Of Mr.
Austin who keeps ladies' shoe store In Broadway,
in this city, in broad day. and the store OF Mr. Aus
tin, and on occasion when Mr.. Austin was IN
weak and enfeeDled state OF health, and unable TO Of
fer any resistance to the assaults of Mr.. Seaman.-
For this offence Mr.. Searaan was convicted IN the
sessions, and Judgment suspended until the issue OF
civil suit commenced by MIR. Austin for the recovery
of private damages. Mr.. Austins counsel adverted
to the aggravaton attendant on the transaction, in
the ISLANDERS hcaped upon the character of Mr. Austin
by Mr. Seaman, and which he had boosted would be
made public as vlndcatlon OF his conduct IN the
suit commenced in the sessions as well as IN the civil
suit in neither Of which occasions had Mr.. Seaman
awaited himself of the opportunities afforded him of
building up any excuse much less justification of his
conduct towards Mr.. Austin, by the production of
any testimony calculated TO impair the public copf
dence in the integrity or propney OF Mr.. Austln's
character or in the least TO sustain MIR. Seamans
PERSONS against him. On the contrary the counsel
observed that no palliaton had been at all attempted
on the occasions referred to, of the conduct Of Mr.
Seaman by the offer to introduce any such testmo-
ny. The counsel of Mr. Austin, deprecating the pres
pect Of the federation or introduction of any Lynch
law principles into the code which had been adopted
for the government of the commonwealth by the e-
eslaiure, stated to the court that Mr. Austin had re-
covered Judgment for very considerable amount 1--WE
believe S45e and coss) in the civil suit, but that
thing had as yet or probably would be recovered
from Mr.. Seaman for his client, whose only recon-
pense hitherto for the wrongs which had been heaped
upon him was the useless expenditure Of monies
which he had wasted in costs the vain attempts 10
obtain redress for the injuries done him. The coun
sci then moved 70 the Judgment of the against
Mr.. Seaman for the assault and battery committed
on Mr.. Austin referred to- when the court acceding
we understood 10 the proprie,y Of the motion as
assigned Saturday next for the judgment Of the court
upon the delinquent. The officials were required du
~ to notify Mr. Seaman, the delinquent, and his
counsel Mr. Blunt, of their intention at that time to
pronounce the judgment of this ceurt