The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-03-28

Before Hon Judge Edwards
March -Cbues Derison President Of n. Wort. Pirer
Bank in the city Of N.r York. Uliaa r. sseAs,, and
Elisha n SacSeff-The plaintiff in this case complain
that the 18th Of October sIe the defendant elisha
snckott madca bill 81 exchange In writing for $500
and directed II to the defendant, William N. sackctt,
payable at ninety days. at the North River Baak AMI
that Elisha D sacket, transferred the said bill BY en-
dorsement, to the association the bill II alleged was
presented to the defendant William ~ sackctt fJr ac
ceptance ON the same day, and he accepted IL when
the l became due II was presented fr payment At the
North River Bank and there fund. 10 meet il
The defendant, William II sackett denies that h. ac-
copied the bill and that the nd the officer.
81 the bank we're well aware u the fact previous thi.
suit being commenced
Nathaniel Weed. formerly Pre.iden, q the Moth
River Bank depo-ed that he knew Elisha Ssckett b.
kept account there; the book produced - thu original
discount book Of the bank; the drf produced
counted az the hank the 18th November lS4s and the
proceeds given TO ElShs u sackctt.
Council for plaintiff objected to the testimony relative
70 this draft, 4 not being the IL present suit
Witness con,inued-Elisha u sacketi brought two or
tbr,e notes 70 he dscouned comprurnise hs
account at that time had between nine and ten thou
ssnd dollars II his paper, If lac would gave good security
We would have given him reasonable time to par them
submitted his paper TO the board aud they authorized
me to make arrangements with D. ~ Sackett III I vas
Satisfied with the security waited from October 10 soms
me IN November. the board had become inpatient;
then requested interview with him. submitted the
names - " " sackett and Mr Hsyens todd him III he
could give " IL ssckett. the defendant and SIR Tavnns
inouid give him twelve months he aid he IA pro-
cure ibose baines they were pre- ured af fcul.y.
he then brought the two drafts or notes o,,a hold IN
my hand, todd him his brother anI n now.
ledge the note before u could be- paced h. hsu a m.
letter frOm VIM N. Ssckett htt J told hin ta.h
would DO hut the presence ~ " - Sacka,,. h. a.,
vent IN 20 see his brother and his brother cane and
showed him the paper. and he said II lis hand
writing he also said the letter HE had ieen init.
mated 70 that there another William u sacke,,
and that was the reason a my being par. eulsr, w
" sackett the defendant known g. a. nd We -.
hettd him 10 be responsible have the tthor WIN
~ ssckett he Il not the person ! then saw
ON crussexnmination he aid that the Id paper was
taken up ~ the new D. sackttt wanted ore, two AID
three years time, ana last took Il ~ one YEAR Mr.
Mad director, intInatcd that thvre Two " IA
sat kstts
William II sackett Cnot ono NJ the defendantsl Vas
called. Two drafts produccdJ Q-Did tie same per.
ssn who signed the William N SacEctt 20 one ~
Those drafts sign The other Al wrote them both;
another drsit producedJ signed this al-o am
cousin q Mr. y. % satkett. the defendant. William N
sackett the defendant a1 D sack ii are bruthers
bad not ability TO pay those drans
Cross, xsmn,d ~ Mr Wood-T, was II r. sack.tt
applicd 70 me 70 sign thee drsns
v illiam u. Hoard, took-kecpcr o. the North River
Pank dpos,d that the notc produced for 81 600 was
Discounted a. part renewal ~ other mites
Counsel for the defendants opened their cas- and con.
tend thst iilam u Sackett the party sued vas not
the person Who signed the note In qtrst D. ami that ~
shotd not lie made Liable for be the gana
name.
EalIb Mead dcposcd tina, he called upon NJ weed
the President a the North River Bank AMI told hin,
that her, william n sack,tts in consequences
~ intimation received vent 10 the Bauk told the
President that liam ~ sackett. the defendant had
~ patsr out and asked him a he knew that there
two William N Satk.tts aud he fsid lie did; asked
him William ~ Ssckstt WIS JrcseDt at the srrsngs-
meIt. and be said he was, tAis conversation
March 1912 don't rtcolloct whether SIR W ~ saclett
requested 20 and ifom AZ PRECEDENT that h, had
no paper cut I-Did SIR M ~ Ssekett ult you
direetcr a the bank what wss best 10 be done
Objected 70 Question cytrrulca md exception taken
AFTER stne other testsiony the submitted 10
ihc Jury sud scaled verdict ordered - b. given th
morning