The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-06-29

4
NOVEL CAsE-IETEREsTING TO POLITICIANS AND
| THEIR ORG AN-GRINDERs = ABIJAu INdRAHAA
AGAINST THOMAS l.. BARR
JUNE 2S.-This action brought by the editor of
the asno Democrat against Alderman Barr Of the sixth
ward TO recover fifty dollars that being the set
randum or subscription list -
SEPTEMBER 1. 1851.
city To that purpose estim.ted that Thousand
SI a n be Tsqnrss The uaasrsnsd Pay
respective Is expressly understood that the
far ssa
tune tho rss ss 70 ,
adjustment Congress known
en- "
union and bas%oy the rsnns the
party with view e success in the the nation state aud
IA
among which was hasof the defendant for the above
Mr. D. W Clarke appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr..
Peter b. Sweeney for the defendant.
The plaintiffs counsel called as witness, Caspar G
Chds who proved the signature of the defendant also
that paper had been started provided by the
of The National Democrat y: that the plaintiff the
was commenced that had supported the compromise
measures and the principles of the democratic party
On erossexamnaton he stated that he to receive
the amount recovered to be applied towards debt due
by the plaintiff
Captain Isaiah Rynders then called who testified
that he chiefly instrumental in getting up the paper
and had taken around the subscription list to several OF
the parties; that he had conversation with defendant
aDOu paper Dull NOT recUlect that
said about plaintiff being the editor Of the paper
or that defendant recognized him suce; that it was
generally known among the leading of the party
that DR. Ipgrabam to be the editor and he presumed
as the defendant was leading man in it he must have
Known the fact Had no personal knowledge that de-
fepdaat knew the fact
Cbds being recalled stated that he had conversation
wit defendant that he took the subscription to him
to demand yment; he first AGREED pay but sbse
ouently refused he disied the course of the
paper Plaintiff here rested.
Defendants counsel moved to dismiss the COMPLAINT
He stated that this the first in which subcrip-
tion list towards the establishment party paper had
been the basis of action That they were never
considered to have any element Of legal consideration
and rested solely upon the honorable obligation of the
subscribers That in this the defendant con dered
himself atsolved frem any obligation That the course
OF the paper had been injurious to the democratic
party; that its columns were loaded with personal
abuse that had most unjustly assaled the personal
character OF prominent members of the party nd that
1t had abus ed and illuminated the defendant in his p
vate and official relations He raised the following legal
questions-Firstiy, that the instrument void be-
cause thu parties designated whom the money
plaintiff was the party intended to be benefited Sc
condly that there was consideration; it was mere
gratuity--no benefit to result to defendant, of any
nature Thirdly that the agreement was contrary to
ne statute &c L. X 153 Sec 6) which provides that
1t shall not be lawful for person to contribute auy
money for any purpose intended to promote the election
OF any particular person ticket The case Of Jackson
vs. Walker 9th Hill "a cited where the statute was
held to bar claim for rent of place hired for meetings
with such an object These points were discussed and
the Judge reserved his decision