The New York herald., 1845-12-17
Com mon Pleas.

i
| Dee. l6-Darid Lsarut, President Of the american
Exchange Bank The President Of he City Bank Of
Sl595 81 cents under the following Or
the 25th OF September 1874 who represented him
James II. Williams, called the Office Drew
Robinson & Co.. brokers in Wall street, and offered
by James II. Remington in the warren County Bank,
payable to the order OF Henry X. Hammond Drew, Ro-
gave check drawn by themselves the American
Exchange Bank for si5o5 - payable to the order of
James H. Ward. After Williams got the check, he ask
ed them to cash it, they refused he brou ht
person to identity him-he then went, and shortly re-
turned with man named Brown; they still refused
Brown being as much stranger to them Williams;
he went away second time, and shortly after returned
with Brown and Mr. Tarry-the latter stated no knew
Brown and that Brown would identify Williams, but
they still refused to give him cash for the check. MIR.
larry said he was well known at the City Bank, and
would get cash for it there once They afterwards
went TO the City Bank and got the check cashedand
the day, the 10th it presented at the Amer
Exchange Bank and the amount paid On the morning
OF the 9th OF September, Drew Robinson Co. after
ceivng their Letters discovered that the certificate OF
deposit was forged well the "Jas. H. Ward,'
the back OF the Check and noticed both banks OF the
TACT. Search immediately made for Williams aud
Brown; they traced toa riding house in the city
where Brown found and arrested, but Williams had
sioped and has not since been heard Of Indictments
against both sent to the Grand jury and true bill
found Brown contrived in mean time, TO give straw
ball. and made his escape and no further proceedings
were had on the Indictment The present action is
brought by the American Exchange Bank, to recover
back the amount ofthe check from the City Bank the
ground that the latter guilty Of negligence in
making proper enquiries and ascertaning the identity
Of Williams before they paid it The defence purely
legal First was contended that notcewas not given
to defendants III due time and secondly that the endorse
ment the check not forgery, in much as it
made payable and given to Williams by the of
Ward who gave value for it, although the value
might be worhless and it therefore properly
dorsed by him. Averdct for plaintiff for the full amount
taken by consent subject to the opinion of the
Court, these two points case to be made with
liberty to turn the present verdict in nonsuh
verdict for defendant and with liberty for either party
except For plaintiff Mr.. Cowles.--For defendants
Messrs. Sherwood and Wright
Before Judge Ingraham.
Chas E. Pan Houon ct al. 70. Henry Eisworth.-This
action brought by contractors against the de-
fendant appeared the defendant agreed with third
person for the purchase of lot 0tn street. upon the
following terms, viz: that the vendee to build sub
santal three story brick house the lot that tn
and that when the house built the former should
make deed ohe house and lot to the latter who would
grant mortgage of both to the vendor to secure him In
the price Of the lot and his advances contract was
entered into with plaintiffs to erect the mason work,
cording to rlan add specification. The house was
stated, by the vendor and vendce. difficulty after
wards between plaintiffs and defendant in relation
to the contract and the present action Is brought against
defendant ewneI, TO S67 part OF the sum
contracted to be paid. A suit asked, on the
ground that the defendants title not such as to con-
stltute him the legal the house. and that there
FORE the lien law could not apply, under which alone
suit and allowed the go the jury but reserved
the point consideration OF the Cout In banc The
defendant then sndeavored TO that the work was
done according TO contract but failed and the jury
found verdict for the plaintiffs, SOL MIR Ptkin for
PLAINTIFFS Mir. +. ketchum, Tor defendant