Litchfield enquirer., 1849-10-25
From the Springfield Republican.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
HAmPDIN Co., OCTOBER Term, IS49.

Grant l. Ensiyn Vi. 4. S. Bates
This was an action OF lrover 10 recover
damages for the wrongful taking OF LIS box
es of boots eAd shoes, the property of the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs case was opened
4. Y. Graves Esq, of Conn.,, in very neat
and able statement Of the facts as they sub
sequenlly appeared in evidence. 1t was
proved that, in November lS47, Grant T.
Ensign, who are Wholesale OOoL and shoe
dealers in Hartford, made a contract with
one Ralph F. Cook, OF Norwich, Connec-
ticut, 10 furnish him with stock for retail
store in Norwich, 10 sell on commission,
they returning the ownership OF the goods
amt that accordingly during the winter
they supplied him al different times with
su. Ia BILE goods for that market 10 u large
amount sometimes sending them from their
store in Hartford, and sometimes purchaS>
ing for him In Boston. The business went
on regularly to the last OF March, lS4S,
when without the knowledge OF GRAFT y
Ensign, Cook suddenly pretended to have
sold out 10 Bates, the defendant, his entire
stock, and also new goods " the amount OF
$4,000, then just purchased in Boston, but
not YET arrived in Norwich. A lawyer was
consAl.ed-a dill of sale and notes payable
in 3, 4 and 6 months, for 81 300 each and
a mortgage back, were made In regular
form the goods were partly boxed up, and
on the Both and 3lst Of the month named,
taken 10 New York by steamboat, and i'm
media,ely shipped for St. Loais by way OF
| New Orleans. They were subsequently re-
| covered by Grant " Ensign, but IN a greats
! ly damaged condition, and at much expense,
| Bates was A. this time a minor, undsr
guardianship p, and inheriting from his faith
er some real estate in Wooster, Mass, val,
ueL at about $40 900; aud was a clerk in
a store adjoing Cooks. Cook and Bates
accompanied the goods 10 New Yo' x. leav>
ing bekind a hand bill Of Cooks that he
would open his store again with new
| stock on April 9th. Having told various
false stories In New York about their move.
ments, and purposes, they started across
the country for 81 Louis. Al this place
they heapd that Grant u Co. had s.oE ped
the gonds at New Orleans; aud after sumo
dispute they separated and came back 10
the North.
1t was alleged by the plaintiffs that this
sale was The result of fraudulent conspir'
acy between Cook and Bates their design
being 10 take the goods to s me place Sou
or West, where they could be readily dis.
posed of at auction, and divide the plumber.
! Much evidence was introduced 10 show a
concert and conspiracy TO defraud between
Cock & Bates, from abuut The Goth of NJ arch
down 10 The time OF their separation in 81.
| Louis. Letters from Bales-his declara
| tions and acts showing u fraudulent eur,
pose-a series of false prelenceS on the part
of Cock for the purpOSe Of concealing his
real object, were proved by the plaintiffs
On The part OF the defence, II was conten-
ded that Cook had full right TO sell the
properly IN this manner that the purchase
was fair and regular one, and that the
evidence was all consistent with an honest
purpose oa the part of Bates-allhough il
was admitted that Cook was highly cIimi-
nal. II was shown that Bates had now
gone 10 (California, but Cook was p esent
during the trial. Neither party, however,
seemed disposed 10 trust him as a witness,
and he was not called except TO formal
point.
The trial occupied four days, and ex
cited much Interest. The main argument
were made by Judge Merrick for the de-
tendant, and Mr.. Ashmun for the plaintiffs
each addressing the jury for about tour
hours. Judge BigelOw charged the jury in
clear aud impartial nanner and a Ver-
dict was rendered for the plaintiffs Of S.
534,23. This amount was intended to GOV.
er 4he plaintiffs' claim for the damaged and
deprecated condition of the goods when re-
covered, and the necessary expenses in re-
covering them.
rA rand increaAe In the Consnmn,;or