The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-12-23
Superior Court.


sui,ssley vs. Eugene ks,sltss, VIM a. Kstsit.s, C. B.
called TO prove the publication Of paragraph In the
Sun, headed LAWYER Charged With Perjury"
prepared to connect his clients With r. TSsy
we're no more responsible for it than they we're for the
article which sppeared In the Herald, this morning. on
sminsd. ~ A"' VA
Mr. Rstolif proved that he present at the exc
Buckley and that he advised Buckley to serve the
notice Of lien for his costs, upon the dsfsndsuts
. The argument upon Mr. Cutting motion submitting
tn1t 'nee was no evidence to to the jury against
Msssrs Eugene and W. Keteltas resumed az this
stage OF the proceedings by Mr. Gerard In opposition to
the application Counsel oonteuded that the case
MI Eugene keteltas was sufficiently shown He re-
ncs 20 ns ,so that before Judge ushoesr
attorneys charging him with forgery also the
Sa sss % psary was not enough This motion va.
candid with the court and the at the other
side, and say that in this case, there not that de.
against Mr Eugene Keteltas.
Jnase xanderIoel-l do not see any evidence at all
Mr.. Gerard-Mr Eugene Ketetas was the power
waich authorized this complicated machinery and
Angus, yet he then appeared with such rrsmendous
power rs TO have operation daughter
Inc ost formidable affidavit before Justice Lothrop
was that OF MT Eugene Keteltss and though he did
not perhaps make 1t with the intention that it was to
go before the Grand Jury yet he is nevertheless
ponslole Tor any operation to which IL was applied
Mr. cutting continued his argument in support of
bis motion to strike out the Of the two Ketetas
from the case.
Judge II don't particle of evidence to incupate
William A. keteltas. You may conhne your argument
Mr Cutting commended at length and with great
force, that there evidence against Mr. E. Ke.
ttnas TO connect him with conspiracy against the
Piantln the testimony Of Justice Lothrop emphati-
cay declares that Mr. Keteltas declined TO interfere
matter he saying that he had in It but
that he believed that Mr. f. X said he WAS a witness
Counsel on the other side argues that Mr. T. Keteltas
responsible Ter the effect Of his affidavit used before
the Grasd Jury though that affidavit made in ano-
ther cause lie (Mr Cuttipg) then submitted that Mr.
Eugene Keteltas the client OF Mr. C. B. Smith aud
That no client would be safe from the charge of con-
spiracy ana malicious prosecution il he were to ba
made responsible for the crc of his affidavit
stne truth Of which Is not disputed) being used to
support another charge brought by another partyit
wssa degree of responsibility which he never before
beard attached TO eient-t was novel doctrine, aud
he Intended that Mr. Eugene Ketetas was YER be-
matter
Judge We cannot shut our eyes to the relation in
which the parties stand
Mr. Cutting having concluded his argument, urging
that there was no evidence of malice against MIR.
Eugene ketetas then submitted that there was no
cas. sgsin.t the defendant. Mir. Brush
lhe Judge decided that there evidence to 90
to the jury to connect Mr. VIM A Keteltas with the
case and he should therefore, be discharged from the
responsibility; but with respect to ali the other de-
fendant under the present aspect case he did
not feel justified In directing their discharge.
Mar Cutting excepted Nv 20 the ruling respecting the
defendants, AR T. kete,ta o. and Mr. Brush
Wbeeupon The jury ind that the defendant, william I
A het-ltas' Is not guilty Of the charges preferred
Mr. Cutting raid that he vas originally engaged emily
for VIM A keeltss, whose defence was nov at an end
represented by other counsel Mr. IT, Saith appearing
for Mr. Brush and Mr.. Q b. Smith acting as his own ,
counsel His CAR. Luttipgs opening behalf Of Mr.
Eugene Ketes would be very srief and he hoped the
court would therefore allow the other defendants to
address the jury for themselves. The defence OF Mr.
Eugene Ketslts- was simply his solemn affidavit
that he did not attend ut the police Office i'm this case
nor go before the Grand Jury Witness aud that he
Vas MT connected with that prosecution affidavit
OF man of the highest respsctsbity Of ,ha-
bic integrity Of character citizen with weight
OF years upon him, and veil known to them-and Mr. /
Cutting would content himself by saying that Mr. /
Eugene keteitass affidavit made before high heaven
was The only opening cass he would make
Mr. Gerard hoped there would not be three opening
speeches for the defence
The Judge said that as Mr. d Smith was somewhat
prsninsn; in the case. he ight be heard.
Mir L. Is. Smith then appeared as his own counsel I
and opened the case for his defence IL not
kary for him to show that the plaintiff committed
PERJURY; all that 1t would be necessary to ehew was
that he Gar s had probable reason to sup
pose that the plaintiff did commit perjury Mr. Sand
lord had told them that he did not hear the plaintiff
that he had interest In the event of the suit
he Our SMITH would produce the judge who tried the
and some OF the jury who on the trial to
prove that he did Counsel had commended that IL
not shown there was malice this hand and entre
nBoeencs on the other. He charged MIR. % with get
ting up petty swsuit on speculation in the fret in
shern OF New York to levy the carriage horses
Of Mr. ketsltas, the defendant in that action Mr.
smith continued for come time and conepded that the
d.ien dants in this had probable part
they t1sk IN tho prosecution Of Mr. Bulkeley.
MIR. II. Smith then addressed q fe observations
show that MIR Brush did interfere in the prossou
ton OF Bukeey except a lawyer, and that the af
daNt when ne mads was OF facts which came to his
kpo~ltogo In that capacity; and that there
maice
Bradley recalled, and In answer to Mr. Cutting,
produced the promissory note Of MIR Buckley which
was for $50, and interest accruing from the
drawn
MIR Cutting proposed TO read the opinion of judge
Ulsboeger when Diminishing the motion bsfors hin
Tbis was objected To by Mr. Brady not within the
rule Of evidence and long discussion upon the
point
Judge vanderposl said II It was the opInisn of a
tribunal who adjudcsted upon the fact OF the Issue
nov before this court ~ would be admissible and en-
titled TO its due weight; but IL appears to be the
opinion Of Of the judges Of the Court Common
not certain that the vital question In this csss was
before that court IL was grstuitous opinion OF the
judge and he (Jucgs W cannst that IL lsgit
mstsly evoked be must therefore moot respectfully
override the admission of the opinion of Judge VI
S<boefer
Mr.. cutting asked the Judge to read the opinion and
he would find that u was the poat at issue here
Judge Vspdery Del having read the document which
Ns rsther voluminous szid-As have befsre
marked have great repngnanoe that any ruling Of
mine shouic subj-ct the parties to trial and
am not perfectly clear hat this evidence 10 nsdnis
sible, will permit IL to be received
Mr. Cutting then read the sdsyits Of the three de-
fencssts end that Of MIR Buckley aud also the opn
ion OF Judge UlshoeGer In which stated that he
Judge lhheerer) was rather inclined to think that
Mr Bulhelsy was mistaken when he ,wore hs had no
interest IN the event OF the suit bot he however de-
nisd the motion that male against him.
W ke''lts. was then called for the defence, and
y
ksteltas IL Dot practising lawyer, has he been
for the last Fifteen or twenty yesr' present at the
trial of Bradley vs.. Eugene keteiss Mr. Buckley was
sssniDes' aHd was asked by Mr. Smith N he had any
interest IN the event Of the aud he said not Mr.
Smith asked him. had he not for attorneys fees and he
said not.
Iesrexamined Did not take any notes Of the
trial, does not recollect the circumstances Of Mir.
Bulkeleys evidence being objected to- but remembers
that he ssid be had no interest IN the suit
Mr. Brady Who ssksd you TO make the AFFIDAVIT in +
the case
Witnsss.-Mr Smith sent down the afiaavit. with q
note, saying that ~ that was what Mr. Buckley had
sworn to for me 10 swear TO &C.
1he cause was ned at the rising Of the court,
till II o'clock this morning
Before Justices Duer. Mason and Campbell
Dtc ~ -Dtcissss George worevood and Others
rs Lvis p Ba'eie ard WiL,am n Renwiek.--Assump-
tit for not accepting quantity Of oil TO arrive In the
amp sarah frop Hull pursuant to contract. The bar
psip 90. made through broker The bought and sold
notes delivered BY the broker TO the parties differed In
material points Held that the contract void, By
tb. statute Of frauds. Judgment ~ non. suit
john L.. " Nc Crsoken ~. yaw,s e Yabnffne and