The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-11-06
Common Pleas.
Re fnr> rudAn rn0r~horx

"A Before Judge Ingraham. II
nov o. Monitor q. Rfsfer.-ln this cause repor ed
the herald Of yesterday, which action to recov
PACK gambling debt, the jury rendered q verdict Il
the plaintiff OF sos.
james Simmons and ofh,rs ne Henry TygTh uI
an acton oil sectnent to recover gore Of land stus
81 the corner Of East and Msngn streets In 1921 ii
IN dispute formed part to Henry Simmons the anc
tor OF the Plaintiffs and in 1897 the conyey ed the d
teal lot in dispute to said Henry simmons In 1888 d
Corporation brought an eectmebt against the represe
tatives OF Mr. Simmons. for the recovery of the poss1
sion OF those premises the ground that they had
romPnen WIN me o. the grants to Mr. s
judgment. and got possession of the premises Tha
poraton afterwards conveyed them to person M mi
leased to defendant The plaintiffs insisted that the goI
for which the present action is brought was not
in the Judgment obtsned by the Corporation in 1885,
secondly that even if it was the parties bou
by H. as there only two Of the present parties
fore the Court in that suit
For the defence the convey ance from the Corporate
was up; and also that Mr. Garlic and those
under him, expended large in prov ements
thst the plaintiffs guilty of Iatches. in com
IN and defending the suit instituted in 1888 and havi
allowed their rights to remain ever since in allegiance
verdict was taken for all the plaintiffs except JamI
and Peter Simmons, subject to exception
Messrs Cowdry for plaintiffs; Messrs. Leveridge Il
defendant.
Reed. Spencer aud Hannah VS.. Ward and Heath ri
was an action OF conspiracy 1t appeared that in ls{
Two persons, named Herchfeld and Hyman German
carried on the dry goods business in Grand street
me latter ena OF that year they owed debts to the
VI pi4oo oue ~ ward ami HEATH for which they had
mortgage Herchfeld called upon Ward and Heath al
told them how they were circumstanced. Ward arI
Heath advised them to it'll their business and
they would make them advances, and also sell tn
goods; written agreement then entered into N
tween the parties, by which Ward and Heath bou|
themselves to make advances in cash and sell the
goods, which. together with the original debt wouI
amount to $4,000, upon which Herchield and Hymsp 81
ecnted bond, with warrant of attorney to confe|
Judgment thereon Herchfeld and Hymsn afterw ar
continued 10 buy goods credit from various person
and amongst others they purchased from Ae plaintiffs
bill OF goofs to the amount Of $500 Ward and Heath
tered Judgment the bond, and in February, lss5
sued an execution on it, and by virtue Of the execu
and mortgage seized on all the property in the
Herchheld and Lyman, amongst which were the goeI
obtained by Herchfeld and Hyman from plaintiffs sol
and applied the proceeds to the payment of their sw
debt The plaintiffs alleged that Ward and Heath wei
cognizsnt Of the of srch6eld andHy
Notwithstanding which they encouraged them to pIl
chase goods and incur debts having frst secur
ior themselves an their mortgage and ud
ment, which plaintiffs contend was fraud on the 9TH
creditors of Herchfeld and LYMAN
The case stands adjourned To this morning
For plaintiffs, Mr.. Muoch for defendant Messrs
T. Brady and j. Benedict
Before Judge Ulshoeffer.
Clark VS.. Suttoa-Adjourned to this morning