The New York herald., 1844-03-28
Circuit Court.


E7MARcH 27.-Frost vs. Hurs.-An action of assumps to
recover sos ss for taors work done BY plaintiff The
debt contracted in 1888 The defendant pleaded ,he
evidence, which had been made lately Verdct or pam
tiff with costs.
GamIting Houses-.qmmi Dow and Frederick W. Guiteau
Henry Coiton-This very interesting case and
occupied the Court during the day 1t unolds an awful
state of morals fraud and depravity in connection with
the gambling houses Of this city which have been SO fre
queny made the subject of deservedly severe commen
,S% the paa fsG that
clerk, yonng man Of the name Of Robert H. Davis,
embezzled from their store while in their employ and IN
their confidence The plaintiffs -four commissioners IN
this city the defendant, Cotton, Is the proprietor OF
gambling house, No. 26 Vesey street The clerk
sia embezzled the amount OF S60oo by making false en-
tries and by conceament The money was spent al de-
person up title monej hus acquired and further,
gambling by the laws OF the State public offence tue
principle ofaw upon which the came INTO esaa was
goods under false pretences The principal witness to
sustain the action the unfortunate young man who
had been duped into the gambling house ana he 9ppea
his employers he arrested for the offence and was
brought from prison to give his testimony, which he is
compelled to do in his defence. He betrayed degree
recklessness the sandn giving his testimony
which showed how little he felt for the position in which
RoprKr H. DAVIS, examined by MIR. McVEAN--I am "a
years Of age; know the plaintiffs and the deendant
was clerk in plaintiffs employ visited the aen sam
times lost frst went to defendants house in Febrnaiy
1912 lost good deal of money on the first night
deal of money went there.v frequently afterwards
sometimes about three times week aud lost IN Decem
ber lS42 occasion, between 5000 and S4O0t com
playing at that house in February loi and end
ed in December, 1912 lost about 900 during the
whole time took memorandum 0f the items lost al
the time drew the money sometimes on checks from
the Merchants Bank and then spent it had the authori
ty to do lost about dozen times and on different
wss ths highest SIN ,... a. ans % lin & as,ih'r % ost
and Drovers Bank which received on the day spent
lost ON another occasion sum OF S200 lost that
amount more than and lost lesser sums varying
from $500 down to $40 sometimes more ana somsumes
less kept memorandum and burnt II the larger
portion OF the money was on checks which got about
S30OO were on checks on the Merchants Bank the
checks banks principally in this city some q
money consisted Of bills out Of this State; about 10th
l or 32d part of the amount. ..r :, .-
| Cross-eramined by CHARLES OCoSoR.-I was employ
ed as bookkeeper there were other clerks employed
nephew of Dow, the plaintiff; they had access t.
| the books. and were in the habit OF examining
them they were sometimes short ot money nk
This witness underwent long chiefly
in relation to his Of living his habits and asso
sketch Of the modus vesey street which
described perfect in all s departments whether Of Ii
rooms in all parts and all sorts OF gambling He was
ronted with the books in which he had made the false
a and While detailing The % nee 70 ,b
he occasionally kept picking his nails with degree o
sang froid which called forth universal remark
JOHN Dow :Jr examined am clerk for the plaintiffs
| am 20 years Of age examined the books which art
deficient in false charges 5000 This books were if
| charge Of Davis from the year 1s40 to ls43. Gni
eau and Dow often absent from the store on bu
siness during the years ls4o and ap to isia Ther'
good deal Of property always in the store. and
great deal Of money managed by Davis
there good deal ofconfdence placed in him. know
the extent of their business; they received betweel
900 and 5000, 900 year
| This witness was cross-examined at some length BY
Charles OConor chiefly in relation 10 the entries, with
view to prove discrepancy and inaccuracy in the state
ment OF the former witness Davis. Nothing was ecite
shake the Witnesses direct testimony, or to disProv
that Of Davis the former witness
| MARTIN wA1rRs examined-I was Inspector Of Porl
| and Beef on 9th March, 1913.
Counsel put various interrogatores TO this witness
relation to false entries, which were objected TO.
The Court adjourned TO the usual hour this day, whe
| the case will be resumed.