The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-03-08
Supreme Court-speciaI Term.
llaA.A IL A

NARcH7 T. The Case of RGy Tompkins In the IN at
fore rbe court on habeds to enquire whether there
sufficient evidence, in the testimony adduced before
the police Justice to warrant him in binding the
defep dast to answer the charge of false peetenoes
Messrs. i. %. Cutting, ~ ID Blunt District Attorney,
and Noyes appeared for the prosecu tom and aessr
John Van Buren, Ogden Hoffman, and Jonas Phillips,
for the defence Some discussion arose AZ to the pro-
prety Of convincing the case as ths judge said,
from shs number OF causes which were already before
him and awaiting his decision, he could not devote
more than one day TO the kssring OF this ease. MIR
Blunt thought that 1t impossible to dspore it
in one day, as ssme time would be occupies in the
preliminary argument.
mr. Van Buren Of opinion that it could be dis
posed OF in a very short time. writ hobe-s Was
brought which travers~d writ of certiorar! was
also allowed to which Justice Lohrop made retsrn.
Upon the two writs they move for the discharge of
A discussion subsequently, to which sids
had right to open the casa The Judge decided apon
preceded and in his opeaing said that there
OF the complaining parties had dared to charge Mr.
ceedings against him with the intention of terrifying
him or his friends into a settlsment OF his debts
The fscs in brief with regard to tho matter that
Mr., Tompkips had been engaged for some time as
broker, In he city of New York in Wall street. that
January, and on that day he failed. IL is uunecss
sary, now to into the OF his fsure 1t Is un
to say what diss ppointmens
OR changes In the money market, Induced it. 1t is
sufficient to rsy that he failed, and that he retired
from the street and that he paid bona fd crsd-
On the afternoon of the 29th January, his honor
tho presiding Judge issued attachm against
Mr. Tompkns as sbsconding or concealed de ebtor
He came down to the CHIEF OF Police from him he vas
sent to the Mayor, and from the Nsyof he Police
Justice who has held the examination the dispositions
ut which are now before this court.
JudRe-The examination that Tompkins said
to Mr. Nathan that he had sent his clerk the
bank to get . check csshed The question is, WAS
there evidence before the Police Justce that such
repreesp ptation Is false
Mr. Van Burer eaid there was rot.
Mr. Cutting and Mr.. Blunt replied that there was;
that the cashier Of the bank swears such check
presented and that there is evidence that Tomp.
kips did not send the boy.
The Judge wanted to know IL there was any direct
evidence to show that the boy or clerk net
by Tompkips to the bank?
Mr Cutting replied in the Affirmative.
Mr.. Blunt remarked, that when Tom npkins eaid
he, rent the boy to the bank with q check 1t was
to lead to the presumption that he had funds there
whereas 1t had been proved that there funds
Of his in tho bank on that day.
The judge said he understood tho point now, and he
expected the counsel to confne themselves strictly
within tho case as regarded the charge made by Mr.
legged to have been made by Tompkins could be brou
into the present argument.
Mr. Van Buren, continued to contend that there as
evidence to show that the boy not sent to ne
bank with the check Counsel then proceeded to lay
before the the testimony OF Mr. Nathan taken
by the magistrate and concluded by calling the
judge to discharge Mr.. Tompkns the ground that
the testimony before the magistrate did not justify
him in issuing his warrant against the defendant.
Mr. Blunt and Mr.. Noyes urged that there sufn-
eient evidence OF false pretences to justify the mags
trsts In the be had taken, snd that there
psipable fraud on tho part OF the defendant.
The court adjourned the further hesring of tbs
win conclude the argument on the part Of Mr.. Tomp-
kins