The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-02-12
Supreme Court.

This was action tor SANDER, the damages laid a
SO 600 The plaintiff keeps store at the corner of
William street and Maiden lane, and has a cotton
factory IN the Ninth Ward. The defendant is well
known active individual, both as regards cri'
minal and political matters, being famous cleo
ioneerer and moreover, it is said, highly useful TO
our police establishment, having been in constant
communication with it for the last seven years,
and proved highly serviceable in giving info ma
tion that led to arrests. On the 18Th September,
lS40, the plaintiff attended the great mass meeting
which was held in Wall street. The weather was
rainy and he standing with his umbrella over
his head ia front of the City Bank, listening to the
speech Of Mr.. Butler-ofhcers Stevens and wal
dron suddenly sprung upon him, seized him by the
collar and arm thrust their hands into his pockets
took out quantity Of silver money, his watch,
wallet and other things contained ia them, charged
him with being Pckpo:ket, and having stolen n
the wallet, forced him int a cab In presence oil
thousands of people, and treated him In every re.
spect if he had been guilty of the crime they had
laid to him. They conveyed him TO the Halls OF
The secretary Of the North American Fire Insur-
ance Company (Mr. Blair) in whose Office Mclean
had several thousand dollars insured, went to his
store, ascertaiRed from the clerks the description
Of wallet which he carried, and found it to be the
same as that which had been taken from him by e
officers, told them what had happened and set out,
with some other gentlemen, tor the Tombs. They
here found MIR Mclean sitting in room, his
tmoney, watch, and other articles lying on the ia
BILE, the officers, and Justice Matsell present, and
the plaintiff weeping.
They asked him what it all meant, and he repli-
ed that he did not know, perhaps the officers could
M'Lean was highly respectable man, in good bu-
siness, and was far from being pickposket. The
Justice observed that there was evidently some
mistake in the matter, but that the Police were not
to blame-apologised to the plaintiff, restored him
his wallet, in which he stated there were $2l,
watch, money, and other property, and ordered him
to be discharged, after being in the hands Of the Of
ficers for about an hour.
hat 4 <l~f~, L.. L.. Ill
to by the officers Of Police a sort of know all"
and generally accompanied them in their impor-
ta&t excarsions. He was extremely busy in Wall
street on 'he day mentioned. He exclaimed " there
are plenty of the boys pckpeckets] about here to-
day, and there is one. that stout man'-pointing to
the plaintiff. The officer seized Mr. Mclean in the
manner described. The defendant passed along,
and said, and here ore some more Of them" Fer
the SANDER and the false imprisonment, the present
action is brought.
The defendant denied having pointed MI. M
Lean out to the officers. The testimony Of Mr.
Waldron, and others, showed that he did so, and
his standing by and seeing him arrested, it was
urged, was proof of the fact.
Mr.. SHERWOOD summed up, with great ability,
for the defendant, and was followed by Mr. An
rHoN on behalf of Mr.. McLrne. He asked the jury
Standing in one Of the most pablo streets in the
city, pursuing right which is dear to us all, seized
like felon the worst description the cry ofpck
pocket raised among the multitude, and he held up
u
carried of to prison. and information conveyed to
his clerks that he had been taken up as pickpoc-
ket With what feelings could he return to them,
however innocent, after such an event. The de-
iendant has accumulated property. Unfortunately
the only remedy which the law allows in such
is an action for damages, but, however exemplary,
they can 90 but little way in reputation for out
rage such as this.
The Jury, after a short absence, returned YER
dict in favor Of plaintiff for $1,000 damages and s
cents costs.
For plaintiff, Mr. Anthem. Mr.. S. Sherwood and
Mr.. Chase for defendant.
james Gidehnan Peter Settler and Martin Flo,c-
ers This was an action of ejectment, nominally
brought against the defendants, but in reality to
test the validity Of will made in 1880 by Mrs
Bloom, of Newtown, L. l., and to settle the right
OF Ownership in property Nos. lG6 and l63 Nassau
street. adjoining Tammany Hall. Previous to the
deceased marrying Mr.. Bloom she was a widow
and owned the building in question, besides other
valuable real estate, and had marriage articles
drawn up retaining possession and the right of dis
posai in her own hands; sometime previous to her
death she made will, but was induced to destroy
it, so that the plaintiff become an heir at law. A
few days anterior to her demise, however, she made
that she not Of mind, and the property has
been in dispute ever since.
This case was tried sometime since, but the jury
did not agree. The following is the verdict now
presented -
The Jury say that they find verdict for the de-
PENDANTS, and to the question say" was Mrs
Bloom the testatrx, at the time Of the execution of
the will bearing date on the 18th day of December,
1880, of sound disposing mind and memory %
Yes" "Was the said testatrix induced TO make
the said will by fraudulent representations? s'No'
With liberty to make case, and turn the same
For plaintiff, Mr.. E. H. Kimball-Mr Foote, for
defendant.