The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-09-30
Court OF Common Pleas.

Before Ju14f rglis
ssrr. 20 Austin Bertrand VS.. MiebaeIf Csfs This
case, which bias consumed several days, this lay
concluded and the jury found for the p.ant, dsmss
S775
II action oftrover to recover the value of GER
tain goods consigned by plaintiff to defendant, hch he
eiused 20 deliver TO him.
II appeared that the plaintiff no resided at Mentz ia
Germany, consigned in the fall of 1899, quantity OF
l,oAing glasses though the agency OF the house OF
Abrecht X Co, OF Havre, in France, TO defendant and
.horly aztec arrived in this country, and went to Ar
X nsas
In tn spring OF 1910 he applied to the defendant for the
goods, and the latter refused TO deliver them, the
ground that Bertrand had acted in obtaining
Dem, and that in Germany h. had been declared frau
ulent debtor and at tie title to the goods had pessed
him 10 the assignee And therefore the Ell ndsnt
would the goods for the benefit OF Bertrsnds
toTs.
Bertrand therefore commenced this action to recover
lsmdges TO- beng thus kept out OF his goods.
There various adduced in evidence
both sides to prove dsprove that the plaintiff had
blamed the goods With intent to pay for them.
There was also ye disparity the value set the
Goods BY the plaintiffs and Defendants witnesses. The
vaning them NJ from " to $500 and the latter
slung IN. snly at about S60D
The JUeor charged thfJuIy.Ths defence rests on
points Fnst that the title TO this property passed
he plaiy iii 20 oher PERSONS under the decision Of
be Conrts ~ Germany sud therefore that Cae though
got the properly from Bertrsnd through tb. house in
isvre YET finding that The goods were ffsuduiently OBJ
aimed be had ligfI to keep them Tor the
If Bertrand bought the goods in the usual course of
business ami las unfJrtunae and became bankrupt and
hat assignee as appointed his property by the
Courts IN Germany what testimony have We that such
sate OF things ,Nstedi
III. sdrpued ques ion whether assignment under
kupt laws OF England France sny other
ry Europe, would pass d. title personal property
the country whether We would give the same e.
cy foreign Bankrupt law, TO the law passed by
ougress which has been repealed, tina, II would
onvey to another ths title to ali goods originally belong
| ny ~ IN. Bankrupt
rhedecleions on this point have varied and the view
which couI.s in TINS country would take OF IT, wosld
probably depend upon that international courtesy snd
bersit hich oughtn time peace tote exten ell be-
| 81 q
avs hav. doubt that when the question III Ill he
eued wecan recognize the laws OF f.r,un countries
this extent Where there isI,o claim to the property
on the part Of person in hrs county, and the
only between the bankrupt and the 'oregn assignee,
reluvs to property brought to this country have tle
toubt, from thu hceral principles which now prevail,
nat such IN assignment would he considered valid. ana
nat ,urs would give effect TO such assignment.
But thi 10 not think have before tteoourt
uch auheutcse h mony in relation TO the Bankrupt
proceedings M Europ" a. would change the title 90 the
roperty. We have no. t stimony to STOW thst IN this
here wss proceeding IN any OF the civil courts In
Bankruptcy. There must hsve been some proceeding
declaring the men bankrupt and appointing assignee
guar way, rs Is done here, md also under the
english aud French bankrupt laws Burt proceedings
this seem Uuly OF criminal nature, declaring
jertrsDd.o he ifaudii bankrupt liable criminal,
o improi meut
In this country there also such thing as cheating
,eitors and doing it may b. sent to tha State
PRISON hut his being cted crimnelly and r.
" il producef, would not he evidence of proceeding in
bankruptcy as re- ed TO his property
This Is record OF conviction, and therefore il may
lord evidence that there have been civil proceed.
~ q
PAPER as ought to be produced there have been
civil as we'll as criminal proceeding in the And
nough there may have been acivi proceeding do not
think that we are to deduce the fact Of civil proceeding
rom this circumstance.
will, therefore pass TO another prrt Of the case
rue in point o law, that IL you convinced thls pro-
perty Obtained by Bertrand, with intent lever ray
tor H. th,re enough OF evidence to show tns ne made
contract with intent never TO pay ior H. men me
title TO the ptoI n,vtr passed from Tue ctuo ehd
he Obtained any title tot
Tbis question s entirely 20 the jury to decide, and
- nNr nsIO "A III. fha ~
cb liz hi in YET hen put together may show that
The property raudufnty Obtained and that the tts
ma mol pass from the sellei OF the goods
n gu TO The conclusion n at the goods Oh
t.insd b, fraud thtn this seton tails Bu you must be
satisfied that there was ra I'D the sct Of getting
goods and not paying for them IL not sufficient TO
raise presumption that they obtained rsudulenty
The jury found as above stated.