New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-06-11
LAW Courts.


CoUKr or OYER AND TERMrSER-Before Judge I'd
monds and Aldermen Crolius and Purser Solomon -
Joseph Zone Of the late house of Joseph COZ was
placed upon trial. charged with obtaining money oy
transactions from March 10 June, le4o
Mr. Warwick In his testimony, stated that he mhde
an agreement with Mr. Joseph 20 purchase some STOCK
for him (Mr. J. being Secretary Of one OF the stock
boards and saying be could In consequence per
cent commission for Mr. w. that the stock was to be
purchased through the firm OF Genin a Lockwood, who
would advance a certain the purchase and hold
the stock security that ne (Mr W. gave Mr. J. at
the commencement check for $500 OF his brother,
lanes Warwick, Richmond Va. for whom the transac-
ton was made. Mr. j In pursuance OF this agreement
said he had purchased 80 shares of Canton at a. and 80
of Reading at "a. next day, it being falling market
gave him order TO buy % more OF each ana ON the
ga 20 more of each making 100 shares of each in all
On the 23d NJ Joseph called on me (said Mr.. w Tor
500 and said if did not advance IL g. e. l.. would
sacrifice my stock gave 1t TO him On the Ih ApI ne
for $500 for which gave him draft drawn IN favor
of Genin & Lockwood, on my brother In Virginia. On
the 18th he called for $500 more, saying did not ad
vance il that day G. & l.. would sell my stock and
should lose the 81 600 already advanced handed him
the amount. On the 18th April he made similar de
rnAnd for $500 more and gave him draft as before,
In favor Of G. e. l.. my brother at Richmond. About
the latter time he sold some OF the stock by my order
on my account then rendered me account there be-
ing so shares OF Canton and so shares OF Reading eit
aud balance against me OF SIZES w. There was q
transaction in May OF - shares Morris. GA the ION
June ! went look after my stock, when Mr. Joseph
told that he had been ruined, and had lost all his
own stock and mine too subsequently, sscertained
that he had never employed Genin Lockwood in the
Transaction, and they had nothing 10 do with IT, The
money advanced by me over debts and which thus
lost was about 81 so. Had not supposed the stock
TO be In the hands of G q l.. should net have made
the advances.
After some testimony had been given, showing that
Nj j. had never mentioned the transaction to q. 4 L.
but had considerable Canton ana heaong oei0nghB !"
him Ia their hands. - $50 .
Mr. sickes opened for the defence He said that Mr..
w came 10 NewYork In 1888 to settle up HE business
having failed shout that time lie had business with the
firm If Joseph & Co was debtor 10 IT, and well ac-
ous,oed with the defendant Mr. that in le43 he pro
posed to Mr. to embark in the leaf tobacco business
Mr. TO furnish capital and Mr.. W. to give In effect hls
time and experience. Mr. w. advanced SJVVV LOT
which he has had no return and Mr.. w alec caused a
los. 10 his brother in the same operation OF s2OOO
throwing the blame upon the defendant. Mr. w re
sides AT New Rochelle but came 10 this City almost
every day and at the time OF this stock transaction
made the house OF Mr.. j. In HOustonst when ne came
here bis home. Mr. w. proposed to him the operation
"a N the stocks Mr. consented 10 H. out SAID nOthlng
"a TO third party being broker aud told MI w that
he should claim the privilege of buying and selling the
stocks and aing with them while IN his hands "hlch
agreed to- The of tho drafts being drawn In
favor of G. a. l.. was because Mr. W. said MS Orother
bad pre- udice against Messrs J.
Mr. Hepriauez testified To accidentally being present
when Mr. J. aud w. were speaking OF Canton and Read
ing stocks and heard Mr. say he would use while 10
his hands which Mr.. w agreed To. The cause Will De
resumed this forenoon--For the people Messrs Nc
Keon and James X. Whitney. For defence Mr. Sickles
and Mr.. David Graham
Cornr OF COMMON PLEAs-Beiore Judge DAILY Rip
la 4 Mccullough vs.. Arson Bldke-Aeton TO recover
for psnt furnished for nine buildings In Brooklyn Inc
defence was that articles were furnished 10 MIR r
sackett with whom Mr. y. had contract To meet
this was conended that the contract had been rescind
ed and Mr. purchased the articles by his order as Mr.
Rlake's agent Verdict for plaintiff 1916 92For plain.
utfs Mr. = ssnscsy and Mr. r. Marundsie For defend
ant Mr. Blum, and SIR +. Msrtndde.