The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-02-03
Court Of Common Pleas.
paCora Iudoe Inolis.

FEE. 2.-John Clark VS.. INN NJ Pritchad =
Prior to and durog the year 1889, any unhappy
wight that came into this State having claims
him was liable, until he had been here thirty DAYS,
to imprisonmen nj for debt; but since then, we need
not saw, the law has been altered, aboshiag the
system altogether. The plaintiff was, and lie, pro:
preor of the picture gallery IN Barclay street, and
the defendant is a smart young lawyer, connected
with Mr. Emerson, 80 Wall street In Oct 39, a
Judgment obtained agains. the plaintiff in Boston,
for Sill, was sent. TO MIR. Prtchard BY Ellis Gay
Loring, of that city, for collection. He sued out a
capias from the Superior Court, and, in order, as
Mr.. Jordan insinuated, to show what an almishty
smart fellow he in collecting debts, gave orders
to MIR. Kepp, the Dsputy Sheriff, TO treat Mr.. Clark
a nonresident debtor, averrlng that he had re-
Gently come from Boston, and was amenable to the
law, BY which he hoped to make him pay up, al
though Mr. G. had resided here Tor several months.
The Deputy Sheriff went to the picture gallery
while the plaintiff was up to his eyes IN business,
preparing for an auction sale oil pictures wnicn NAG
been advertised to take place that evening, arrested
him, carried him down TO his attorney Mr.; Andrew
William and from there, accompanied by Mr.
w. to the Office Of the defendan,where on repre-
sentatioa of the facts Mr., Emerson, (the partner)
took ''lhe responsibility Of releasing HIM.
Action was then brought by the plaintiff tor false
Imprisonment, but Mr. Prlichard entered into ne
gociation for terms, provided release were gwen
on this action. The document was drawn mp, and
the defendant called upon the attorney Tor painuh,
but the terms were not fully complied with, and he
refused TO rady After he had gone, the release
was amepg the missing A similar document sub
ssquenty met similar fate, and they were both
brought into Court this morning by the defendant
In proof that the action was settled.
"Avaunt thee feni-tske any shape but that
said Mr.. Williams, and he pounced down upon the
documents as memenfos OF "hrpe deferred" Uor
the defendant went on and collected his Boston
debt) He produced evidence to show that MIR.
Prtchard had come .'a little too much" ofthe lawyer
over him in getting the papers-in other words, he
had pocketed them when he should not have done
so, and the jury, under charge Of the Judge, that
the release was not valid, gave verdict Ia favor
Of plaintiff for ssl33 damages, and six cents costs
For plaintiff Mr.. Jordan and Mr.. Williams; Mr.
Evart for defendant.
Mcdonald and Johnson vs.. Charlotte Hinkey The
defendant contracted with her son-n law, JOhn Gar
rstsop to build house for her in Essex street, for
which she was to cay $4,000 Garret on faile when
the house had been nearly completed. but owing
some of the hands. The present ion Is under the
lien law the plaintiffs being stone masons, and were
creditors for work on the building The amount Of
$l56 Mrs. Hinkey defended on the ground that The
had paid the contractor in FULL but tbs Jury did no,
consider such have been the case, and gave ver-
dict for plaintiffs Of Sl6S Al
For plaintiffs, Mr. James T. Brady; Mr.. Lozier,
for defendant 80. sr