The New York herald., 1849-06-14


CIRcUir CoURT.-Before Judge Morse.-Wiiiiam Tay-
lor Samuel M,rdy-This was action for debt for
a verdict plaintiff Of S2l2 76 and six cents costs
Michael Kenneday and Johanna his ,oife John l..
Berger and Michael Berger.-This action having been
reached upon the calendar and appearing
the part of the plaintiff filing affidavit showing
service of notice of trial. motion of John p Rolfe,
counsel for the defendants ordered udgment-thatt the
complaint be dismissed with costs each the defen-
dants, respectively The court then adjourned.
., CIEsTT Gouar m % SALrSDARmIhis dayINos IL i? 81,
THE GREAT FORGERY CASE AT New ORLEANS
The examination of Mde Gallot, alias Miss Elise
Clement, on the charge Of forging a note for
$4,000, on Mr.. A Mlchoud, was commenced at
II o'clock yesterday before Recorder Genos and the
court room crowded to its utmost capacity with
spectators anxious to catch glimpse Of the accused
and listen to the evidence in the The particu-
lars of this highly interesting time
to time laid before readers. Great curiosity
manifested by the audience to obtain sight Of the
accused but her personal appearance does hap
pen to be quite as preposessing has been imagined
the first glimpse perfectly and all
The Hon Pierre Soule appeared for Mr. Michoud the
party on whom the forgery is alleged to have been
SSomnmHted Sns Cypren Dufour Esq was present on be.
the first witness sworn was Mr. CArELLA, the notary
puohe ie stated that the note handed him for
collection the l4th April by MIR (sllot who stated
that he had been married that morning and desired
York Witness went to see Mr. Michoud immediately
after Gallot had left but he did not find him in he
m "n the following day and on presenting the
does not know the prisoner at the bar.
Mr.. MIcnoup was then sworn. The court directed
him to examine the note, Of which the following Is
copy
NILE. ORLEANS, le 10 Avril, Is40.
presentation je payerai Madlle Elise Clement
son ordre la 'omme de dix mile piastres pour yasr
refEn En,,.s :, agn Ssgnned2 S,,. c,. Ant MlCHoUD:
Payez MIR. A. Chiapella on Il son ordre,
Nile Orleans, lie IA Avril, 1s4s A.GALLoT.
Witness having done so, replied that there we're some
resembled belonged to his mode of writing lie must
have written 1t with very bad pen under singular
circumstances The body of the note not in his
hand writing. He did not know the accused; had
her only at his store the 18th Of April last where
after having bought various articles she took piece OF
paper out OF her reticue, noted down the purchase
and asked witness to receipt the account She acted
| In similar manner with another small purchase on
signatures from him Witness presumes that the paper
bad been chemically prepared to be susce ptble
Of taking off portion Of the writing and leaving the
material part untouched the accused stated that
name was Mademoselle Maria. Witness being ques-
toned by Mr. Soule declared that he had signed
Of the kind that the accused had been opv on
twice in his store and that the scandaous rumors
aaoat in regard to intimacy with her entirely
slse witness was positive that he had never signed
the note in fact he had never, any evious
sion, Issued any such note
Cross ezamiried by Mr.. Dptow.-Is this your sigma
ture! (Pointing to the note.)
ANswER.-I believe my signature has been transfer
red by some chemical process
QtEsrioN-i WISH you 10 answer yes or no, IL this
your signature!
Al cannot state exactly; believe that some felo-
NOUS have been used to transfer my signature
1t has no doubt been done by this woman, whom be-
live to be connected with advertisement which ap-
peared time since in the Bee setting forth that
fortune could be acquired by applying at certain
place, without making Of ordinary efforts; feel
persuaded that she is an apt pupil in such rascaties
(Here the witness called to order)
O. wish to know explicitly whether this is your
signature? Cannot you answer categorically
W.! can neither say yes nor no. The word San
vaft 10 INIT fhun tharx To rllaA
ink after having been written aud never signed
my name in such . mwnner
The court here remarked that the witness had an
swered TO the best Of his knowledge when MI Dufour
insisted that 1t necessary for the defence to have
plain and definite and he had right to claim
it, Mr. d. contended that his client could be deem
ed culPable II the entire basis Of the the
signature to the note, was dsposed Of in such
MIR SouLE insisted that under the circumstances no
other reply could be called for the part the wit
ness Mr. s. then produced q magnifyDg glass and ap-
Piled it to the signature 80 As to satisfy the court that
the body Of the note had been run in subsequently to
the signature He also pointed to the solemn declara
tion Of the wtBees that he had signed his
In such a manner.
Mr. Dur.uR still insisted on plain Straightforward
answer to his question. but propoundng it again
the reply was the as at first.
Q-Have you not stated elsewhere, in conversation,
that this was your signature!
A.-No, sir, never declared that it was my sigma
ture though have always stated that 1t bore close
refembance still believe that my signature has been
transferred by some chemical process
MT SouLE then stated that he going to bring
forward witness who he believed would prove 70 the
court that the advertisement inserted the Bee Of
the goth of March, relative the rapid quston of
ahrtune BY some equally rapid MEANS was handed in
alluded to was Mr. f. Duyerrer the accountsnt Of that
establishment. To this MIR Dufour objected NEST de-
cidedly as repugnant t. all the principles Of law and
justice.
Considerable discussion took place between the legal
gentlemen In regard to the admission Of the testimony
in question but the matter finally decided by tho
court who ruedi out and the witness
The next and last witness called was MIR. TorESor
He recognized the note, having t previously in
possesson Of MI Gsllot. Had seen 1t In the
hands of the prisoner.
Q.-Were you present at the marriage Of the ac-
eussd!
wrEE.-Yes, sir; she was married on the l4th Of
April; unfortunately of the witnesses the
ceremony; about half hour after the marriage Mr..
Gaiiot showed me the note, snd Observed Here IL
my dowry"
His HosoR remarked that the circumstances of the
case were such would compel him to refer the mat
ter to higher tribunal
Mr.. DurouR spoke 1t some length and contended
that proof had been alleged that Mrs Gailot had
given circulation to the note that the document
bad been in her possession. He shifted also the
ground Of defence by alleging the husband Of the
responsible acts of his wife and that
on him rested the responsibility Of the affair
The CouRr, however refused to entertain these sr-
guments, and committed the accused for trial before
MIR. DurouR observed to the Court that 1t should be
desirable to have the trial deferred until tho return
Of Mr. 3nst who was expected to arrive in the month
of October next.
Recorder GKNon stated that he would represent the
case In this light to the Attorney General leaving him
to act in the matter as he may deem properly. o.
Picayune, June 3.
Common Pleas.
Before Judge DAILY.
Jrxw 13.-Len hovG rs Mafiids Whiaoker and va.
liam Wstson.-This action for . quarters rent
The suit defended the ground that Mrs Whit
taker was induced to take It, and 60 into possession,
lsnar vs.b rHa put into
and Mrs. Whitaker for whom the other defendant