Jeffersonian Republican. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1840-1853, 1852-10-07
From the Hollldaysbang Register.
Vhaa sEke Supreme Court thinks =
Of Judge WOOdWard's Moral
OunliEicaaiOUS.

j the Court of Common Pleas of Clear6eld
county, cause was tried before him,
4 which is reported in the fifth volume of
:. Barr's State Reports, page $50, from
which it appears that man named p.
Nolen brought suit to recover from one
Jeol Cadbury, raft of lumber. The raft
: had deem taken by the Sheriff, and sold
] to Cadbury as the property of man
named Ralston. PNolen claimed the pro-
perty under an alleged prior sale from
Ralston to him; but Cadbury, to defeat this
claim, alleged that sale to be fraudulent,
and made for the purpose of shielding the
\ raft from seizure by the creditors of Raj
ston. Among others Ralston himself was
called to the stand, and By his teStjmoly
I d5ScloSed t0ctS Sbo5c51lg the safe TO hare teen
n1ade actth an OBVIOUSLY FRAUDULENT
+ DESIGN; DGg~and yet Judge Woodward
charged the jury that his testimony DID
NOT SHOW FRAUD.
! The case was removed to the Supreme
Court, and the following extract from the
( decision of that tribunal shows that they
considered it q "ccry gross case, with
fraud sticking out at its elbows and
knees" and shows further how they esti-
mated the "mOrdI SeHSi5lljtjeS'' Of man
who could "contemplate the facts with
out being impressed with the fraud which
they disclosed.
/ JIuy Term, 1947,-Cadj70y vs.. Nolc",
June 7. Opinion Of the Court delivered
by Justice Coulter
The Court wander over the whole
facts, and view them with a strong bias,
and intimate that they involve no actual
fraud, but give no instruction as to what
constitutes legal fraud; and the case has
been argued pretty much in the same way
here. The apprehension, or perhaps more
properly the prehension, Of actual
fraud, depends much upon the m0rai SeJt-
sjbilticS Of tie iz1clicjolyaI 1cltO c0,tcmplatcS
/ The tactS ant Of arltjch II as supposed to ariSc.
1t is not, therefore, giving all the light
and aid all to jury which they ought to
receive from the court, to tell them "the
jury will decide whether there was 6Ono-
fole sale Of the timber by Ralston to Pat
rick, accompanied with clear and exclu-
siye possession, or only colorado deliy-
cry Of possession, to cloak it from the
creditors without bona fde sale Of the
title, because under such circumstances
it is often a matter Of total Indifference
whether the sale was iona tdc or not
As against creditors it may not have the
taju of actual fraud, and yet have the
iinvalidity Of legal .fraud, although perfec-
tly bOaa fde. Besides, the learned judge
ought to have told the jury what consti-
tuted "clear and exclusive possession, as
the greatest amount Of difficulty in many
cases of this class arises from the descrip-
tion or kind of possession accompanying
and following the alleged transfer. The
court made strong argument to the jury
to evince that no actual fraud existed and
they said emphatcally, "taking Ralstou's
testimony to be the true view of the case,
are any grounds disclosed for treating his
sale to Patrick as fraudulent This is
pregnant inquiry, and, taken in connec-
ton with all the court said before, could
only be understood by the jury to mean
that from all the testimony of Ralston,
whom the court, near the close of the
charge, calls the champion or the defence
there was no fraud, even according to the
strongest evidence in favor of the defen-
dant. And to instructing, | think the
jury were misled, and that it was error in
the court.
1t appears to be very gross case, with
fraud sticking out at its elbows and knees,
and especially and strongly so by the tes-
timony of the said Ralston
He says Chat l met Pat Nolen, and
told him that the sheriff was coming on
me, and that | would give up to McCord .
my property. Patrick told me I had bet
ter not do it, for McCord would serve me
as Irwin did. But he advised me to sell
it to him, and the timber could be run
down, and | could get the proceeds and
divide it among my creditors. thought
the plan good; he had been a friend. [
said it was his timber after this. He took
everything | had that the sheriff could
seize, timber, grain and all. He gave me
notes for the timber to the amount of a.
bout $500. These are the six notes.
They were given in private room. |
had got $40 from Joel Cadbury, to ena-
bic me to take down the lumber. Igave
Patrick $25 or $50 of the notes-relief
notes-in the private room. We had
Mathews outside to witness. We were
locked up. We came out in an entry
James was there. Patrick counted and
gave me the money had given him in the
room, calling the ones tens, and the twos
twentyties. The money in that way came
to about $500. After that, / always said /
the lumber was Patrick's. The notes for
$500 were to be returned when the lum-
Der was sold and notes paid. | had got
the hands to run the raft down, but told
them 1t was Patrick,s I stuck to the rift