The New York herald., 1844-11-15
In Chancery.


Before Vice Z hanctlof MCIOuu
Nov IA Lswis .9n hon This case reported IN es
terday' Herald resumed.
Mr.. BurLER read the of the defendant, which
sets forth thar Mr. Anhon attorney and counsellor
at law and rhe set forth in the bill OF COM
plaant chat his character counsellor he has o. en-
ire queny employ ed in OF moneys for his
clients but has uniformly confined himself to his sri.t
professional duty in the examination oil the nue. ieavns
to the applicant or mortgage tho examination ihio me
suhcency OF the real security and the responsibility OF
the boDdsmen that he has adj proiessed 10 have
any knowledge Of the vaae Of real estate to
guide him in his investments, OF his own funds or
which his clients could ddrely in investing thes
has always depended upon the Judgment oi others
as he believes the complainant wen knew .na. - s uns
did apply this defendant to and him IN ms
capacity in the investment OF his uads IN poha sd mo
gage From that defendant accordingto to ms pest reco
has been ucq uanted with the complainant pro
tsssionally, about 20 or IS years during, "hien
time, and at long intervening intervals, he has
conducted for him Q few suits at law one an
action for malicious prosecution. IN S,rh - %
uccpssniy termnated the year s3i and for defend
ants services in which suit he seemed gra'eui me i'w
other being OF trivial moment ard al closed ana al
particular counsellor and c en long pfor
the transaction in III behalf in said bill OF compliant
nentioned these matters and the inteIe Whch the
defendant always felt and expressed lor the welfare o me
gave him all times free access to SAID DE
endants office, when defendant cheeruiy answered ms
enquiries, and would advise him, when requested, On
ma tiers Of business which, however, seldom occurred
aud which advice was generally o. 30 trivial
hut the was given generally gratnitousiy ao .na
Possessed skill In horticulture, which nte
rested defendant and most frequently the subject
his with the defendant and the extent ano
character Of his familiarity Further ha 20 or aou' ns
year 1894 the said complainant being as he alleged out
Of health and anxious TO 60 to Europe for s
advised with defendant, as with rieno now, ahd io
manner, he might safely accomplis' ms wlsnes.-
That the de endant gratuously advised him against
templated partnership which he then mad ~ view py
following which advice IN he bso
ed him cm ruin. That IN connexon WIN ms auvct
IN that the mind Of said complainant might oe az ies
turing his traves the defendant did. out OF kipn
cess TO complainant, consent TO act as supe IN
endant his funds duri his absence, Receiving
he same from the person under whose charge he ief
MS bus ness and making payments for him thereiron
when necessary all which services were IenueIeo
~ defendant cheeriully and wi hout reward Fur
Ser that defendant has no recollection Of havrg ever
invested any for said complainant on ponh ano
mortgage alleged in said bill more than once ana on
hat occasion did nothing than look 10 the iIe al
h.r as far as they attended TO in his Office
sping mansg.d b, complainant with perhaps the voul
ar, n OF attendants ceI Ks and Students with which b.
had ON. intimate and familiar. but OF which proceed
,ng he has no knowledge whaev r that the investment
made in the year 1880 Ihat ne e.sl maui ~
her Investment such transaction has en'irey pastd
ais memory very CERTAIN he never IN any instance
exercised any Judgment nor was required to 40 so as to
suiicency Of the premises to be morgaged una h
personal security the obligators and that excepting
As above forth he has no knowledge o any cenndeb
tia with said complainant about mis- pecn
mary s4iIs that complainant applied him to invest h
money, but lett to him 10 examine the securities conh
ing himself to the examination OF the p and Q. i.no
ant did approve Of any rrjections as mentioned ID p
founded compliments representations, aer max
ing his own examinations, into the accuracy o whci
painant ma, have EXPRESSED his intention to leave hh
monies idle rather than invest unsasnetory That h.
d,I ascertain the amount be- about S2 QUO that he
i'd purchase cou.iry for cash. and being snxous
command his funds, which were III bonus shu mor
cages addessed the note referred to IN the p 70 com
not knowing whether he had or had not invested
ms funds that he received a reply IRON complainant
that he had not whether the reply was written OF
verbal defendant knows not That defendant knows no
h,pg whatever the letter alleged in the bn 10 hav
oeen sent to him that he thinks 1t probable and ad
mits ,ha some communication must have been madt
10 him Of the amount in the hands OF complainant
but he does not believe that any letter containing
tny such paragraph, offensive even by impiicatlsi
was or could have been, written by complainant
10 defendant without putting an end az once 10 the
treaty. there being difficulty in turning said mort
of this defendant elsewhere into cash ana that bt
us not been abie after careful search TO find any such
letter among his papers and II any were written the>
must have been destroyed. Mr. A. concl1 des WIN tht
ienlai that he had eXered or att mpted 10 exert
apy influence over the complainant That ne does not
Anow hat from Europe the complainant refers '"
,s proving the contrary that he preserved none h'
thought NJ to him whie ABROAD the same peme
and r.cais oil occurrences thefe nc
nas he any recollection o any tending 10 estaDish
he notes, degree the allegations Contained Ia the COM
| plalnants bill.
| The case will be resumed this forenoon