The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-12-20
Superior Court.

forgery. Under this state Of facts Mr. Powell was
required to give bail Ia the sum of $780, to the
charge.
Superior Court.
Before Judge Vanderpoel.
ACTION FOR The MALICIOUS PROSECUTION OF
LAWYER.
DC. le.-Lucius T. Buckley Eugene KeteAds, Jas
III Brush WihIam n. X, teitGs and e Bnabridgs smith
MIR T. brady stated the tor the plaintiff a. great
length by which we learn The folio wing particulars of
the oause ct action the result o which appeared to be
loo ked Ia with great xiey by the legal profe
and which ~ the learned judge said, when sppi
cation was made to him another matter during the
Trial was one Of such importance that he would
suffer himself to be Interrupted by any other subject
during its investigation. rhe case appears to have
ariten out of quarrel between Mr. Eugene Keteltas
and family and Mr.. Lucius Boikeley's driver the
Park theatre on tn. 18th Of June S47 on whch night
after The close Of the opera Mt b. assisting the
lady who accompanied hm into the carriage. MIR VIII
liam Kst.ltss caught the horses by the head. and
puzzled then back to let his company. consisting Of
MIR Eugene K.tsltas. wife. daughter, aud MIR e
Smith, to their carriage the opposite side
al the street Mr. Buikseys driver whipped his horses
up vain and Ia doing MIR William 4 Ksteltas Gays
the Insh HIT him Mr. Ketsltas sent his cscriate,
which had proceeded up Broadway, and he g. X
jopped into hack the stand telling the coach
20 drive like the ID after Buseeys carriage. saying
that there vas man dead In IL; he ". then go,
out through the front window the drivers box.
AID took the rsns and whip drove into Mr. Is =
risge aud struck his driver three times The
driver subssqushtIy took action against Mr. Il. X,
aud retained Mr.. Buckley to sue for him and
v,r-d a VERDICT against Mr. Ket.ltas The day after
that trial Mr. f. n proposed 60 u. to pay cons-
deisby lea than the amount Of the verdict Ths
declined and Mr KS attorney said he would get the
driver 20 settle tor the proposed The driver
absent from the city at the time Il the trial aud Mr. D.
fipg that the defendants would get hold Of him aud
induce him Ia do cent notice of len for aud
also stating that the bs settled with him
the attorney la the The charge of perjury sgsnt
Mr. Buckley arose In this manner The defendants
mad. aftdssits that MIR B. Who was witness on the
trial OF assault and battery testified that he had in
teres 10 the event 81 the sut and that he had agreed
not to charge his client anything for HE services aud
then In this notice OF lien aud other letters aud al
legged coDver,s'ion to show that he had interest
The defendants first went bsfors Justice Lothrop po
lice Dsgistrae. aud Nth great difficulty subscribed Ia
g-tripg warrant the Justice saying at the time that
he did feel satisn.d that q sufficient made
out to authoriz. it, MIR Buckley was brought before
the magistrate. and the plant promptly dis
missed Mr. b. was again arrested on the same chsrss,
d.f.L dGbts having b.tur. the grand In his
abe. nee, and obtsiDed ibdictm-nt. Another trial
wss had and MIR. b. was immediately acquitted 81 tue
charge having been made out against him. rhs
action is for the macous prose Of that
charge The plaintiff denies the allegation that he tes
th.d that he had interest Ia the event " the suit
the assault aud battery trial and that n he had
tilted. II for that he bad interest The an
davis used by def ndants to fousd their charge
frst by them motion to strik. cut IS costs
from the record In the assaelt aud battery In
which motion they did not succeed They then pro-
c'sd.d In their prosecution which Is the csuso ~ ms
action
Mr. Brady, in his opening statement, said he would
chow that the circumstances were OF !, aggravated
character, and such. be sure, would Lead the
jury TO marx their disspprobston by proportionsts
amount Of damages. hn client IL young etrug-
SIR along In Inc profession. ~thOut much par
The GeieDdspts had Instituted proceedings Hgsinst
biu fer rjury and exposed him 20 t~' trials ~hch
we're both disnissd, frat having by perseverance, and
p.rtiBscity inouo.d Justice Lothrop u gr..t var
rslt. The exuaurdrsry nature of the aindsyits II,
that not OF them dsolsrea that that Mr. Buik.ey
ia.; but they rely for the evidence OF tue
fssiiy upon What Mr. had written; yet they make
out no such H., (Ar Brady -oud ASK the Court
t. charge the Law Co be- that ~ Mr. Buissisy even
vio'e TO ar smith aud .ad that all he had ssiru To
table, from brgisnipg TO ebd u sas nst SUES ent
etouuds 10 obtain ssrfsBt sesiost him for O-riury.
A W I'D In u pu asersa
tine BEADED "A Lawyer Charged With Perjury " aud
cop, cent to MIR Bulkelsys mother, Who resided in
the "a Get that oh. mtg bt that Der q whose
property che eotertsDsd such natural Anxiety. sss
ohsip,d nth the crime of perjury. 1oussei then
stated that the charge more offensive than that
Of muid.r man whog'es on stand to commit per.
jury. gtss th,r. eddy deliberately mesnSg mat hs
vords ,tsn st,ih- hh- poisoned ,nsit lt hssne
tie 81 the excite under which murders are
generally con mitsd lie proveibtaly the offence oil
d.lib'isiicp-t the offence Of The miod MIR. Eussne
k.t.itss. Who vas ~ealthy gentleman vas the h-sd
this prosecution sgsin.t Mr. BnlE.ley. MI Smi,h,
biz s,nip Law vas yourg NAV; but they should have
SEN that they could not Uss. out their Of
v.tjuiy against tn. plaiouH lie (dr. Brady did
not mean t. tsy sbNthiog against the Grand IA.
~ Tor they had opiy 40 er pa'te cs.e o~fofe them
trial ~h.u III. DESCENDANTS examined q. witnesses
s1sitst HIM the r.sut that e.. Judge desired
Oh. Jur, SCOUT HIM aud IL vas b-csuse they had
ttos nsciousy .poesvured t. Tar. bis, from h's posi-
a. In suci.ty from bic profession TO send him 70
TIE sse pr'"p, %. comes o'I.fs ,sp " 49, 'or
such verdict would msrk their s-nr. OF the iojury
irnct.d him and deter others ffum similar course
H. oud sho- that vbst the defendants swors 10 vas
ptstiop Of what Mr. Bulk.lsy bad s~Orn to
a. court toup Ell then stated that the admission Of
does not forpisb sufficient ground for ipdtct-
m.pt fer PERJURY. " he to x" e. police oficsr
tsy he head - the jury declare that be had
mtt.d larceny by breaking into store In Broad
~sy, be uust bret prove ihs, the store vas BROKEN
tp.b " n rsp h- cbergsd 9TH murder. the tact VI
I'd. murder mut nrst BE- proved Thus, br ccnt~udsd.
thi, ease. and Ia illustration, Mr.. Brsty re-
lst.a . cuIi"us citcumstsuce, ~hich occurred sone
y.srs ego IN Vermont, where msu msde pnf.s-inn
that he he'd kui.o snotnsr. bys biow somsno. pre-
,ttly shd n De- cripticn vt the supposed mu dsrvd
b,ta given IN The pspers the result ws that the
q Who -ss Thought To- have be N Killed srrivsd In
tin. 10 IN. III. Of the srif accused. tie dr
ItsoyD dio not hpow ~b.th.r n Wa owing to the i'm
t.rhcti IA. Law 10 then -stsd or the ignorance
~ tie In y'rs hut we're Vt not that the rsp wnp ~ss
thctsb to b. killed arrived In tire tue III, Of the
ab,t uight bs,e he, sscritc.d After further
- The learned ger IT, man ssid he you'd be
81. tubisntiste tb. facts as ne had stated them
sbrh n. suuuit Ell presented an agra 'ated case
ntEb.' rsstn sibie defendants
81 str,s-es then csil.d and examined az To the
.,ts ssts tn N. prosecution case adjourned st the
firirg - the court.