The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-11-03

of peadngs would permit me to receive any
evidence OF special damages to plaintiff. Complaint
dismissed with $40 allowance and costs.
Financial Operations Of the British Aristo-
cracy-An Irish Law Case.
In looking European files some months past
we find the following report Of interesting law case
tried in Dublin arising out of extensive bill trans
actions, in which many OF the highest amongst
the British nobility and aristocracy invoved:-
[From the London Times.]
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, DUBLIN, JUNE 10Th.
Richardson VS. Gregory-The case of Richardson
Gregory which came to-day in the Queens Bench be-
fore Mr. Justice Champion and special jury brought
light some curious revelations in connection with tia
history OF Mr. Edmond OFlaherty exrish Commissioner
of Income Tax and in his palmy days the friend
guide and counsellor of more than member Of tho
be mentioned that according to current belief this Mr.
OFaherty is at present holding the unassumng Office of
clerk to store in the city OF New York and that al
year ago. the instance oftwo guileess children israel
no real effort made to effect the capture Of the
d,linquent official The action was brought to recover
the value Of two bills of exchange for f500 and $780, the
first being the draught of the defendant upon Lord Dun
kenin and endorsed by Edmond O'Flaherty; and the
other the acceptance Of the defendant The defence
that both the names OF Mr. Gregory as cepor and of
Lord Dunkellin, were forgeres.
strong bar was engaged on both Sides Messrs Fitz
gbbon and Wlteside leading for the plaintiff and Messrs
Marley and M'Donogh for the defendant.
Mr. FitzgibboD, O. c., stated the plaintiffs case. The
action founded upon two bills of exchange-one Of
them being the draft of Lord Dunkelln upon defend
ant and ss accepted by the tte bearing Gate the 10Th of
MONTHS and the other bill for G500 dated the 24ta OF
May, 1S64-boh bills having been cashed by the plain
tiff for Mr.. Edmond O'Flaherty. The gentleman last
named was member Of Parliament at the begauing Of
these transactions and man upon whose CHI accr
stain impeachment had until gey secsatiy
He was gentleman belonging to the county ii Galway
ayoung man not OF any great wealth. and who upon his
departure from this country obtained situation from
government He was gentleman Of ability connected
with the best families in the county and mixed ia the
best society. Unfortunately for him e he fond of
1858 lost considerable Of money, which he not
in condition TO pay He was o very intimate friend
and Of Lord Dunkein who also very much engaged
on the turf and between them they raised money TO
enormous amount and by genuine bills Mr.. oFl.herty
having lost at the Derby he unable TO meet any
large demands and he therefore disappeared. He how
ever yns in this country in 1888 when the original bill
for f5OO became due, and of which the present
newal Notice Of that BILL stating the full particulars
was transmitted to Lord Dunkellin and Mr. Gregory,
with the other BILL and no answer was sent by either of
the parties denying that they were LIABLE It was not
mr. Ofsherty had Left the country that charges
forgery were preferred against him. To show the init
mate connection between him and the defendant, he
Mr.. 0Faherty, the sth of June, 1851 in which he
stated bis inability to cxtricate himself from his abli
ties without the sacrifice of considerable portion his
fortune and the writer then proceeded to enumera.e hose
liabilities OF which entered into for friend
who had left him IN the lgrch and upon which Mr.
OFahetty was also liable. The first OF those enumerated
was for 81, 800 for part Of which Sir James Graham
liable.
Mr. Martley-Sir James Graham did you sayY
Mr. Fitzgibeon replied in the affirmative and said that
although great mixed up with the case, IL
was fact that great had involved themselves in
felonous transactions and would continue to do until
the end Of the world.
Mr.. Clarke minated TO Mr. Fitzgibbon that the party
in question was Sir s. Graham, and not Sir James.
Mr.. Fizgibbon having stated that he had fallen into
mistake TO the name and that IL not the cele-
bracd statesman who had been referred to- read the list
Of the liabilities which included the OF Harris
Marcus and other money lenders the total amounting to
nearly COO These constituted very formidable ITEMS
and although 1t might be argued the other side that
She document In question omitted all no ice Of the two
bills now sue upon, the answer to that would be the
fact that Mr. Gregory had accurate idea Of his lah
lties and while the hand he inserted the bill OF
Harris for 81 500 to which he liable, although
he designated IL forgery, the other hand be
admitted that Of the two bills which he sued
by another attorney genuine, having contested his
liability when the action had been drst Instituted The
defendant was not a merchant-he kept no accountant
he could not speak with accuracy Of his various bill
transactions and the jury would pause long before they
found by their verdict that Mr.. OFaherty had been
guilty Of forgery he being absent and therefore incapa
Several Witnesses having been examined wiz view
Of proving the senuneness Of the defendants signature
Mr.; Henry Richardson was put upon the table,
the plain'ii; resides at NO Robert street Adeighi
herty and Captain Greene, P TO him with bills
cashes bills sometimes about the 2lst Of August 1883
before he came afterwards that the next day and
brought paper witness gave ha money for two $500
bills, one was OF the zou O' August was renewed;
paid part OF the bill by money pu, the remaner Of
the money TO the credit Of the eeandan the ptance
that Of Lord Dunken some time In December 1888
second document was rendered 10 witness by Captain
Greene and which he received had notice OF dshonor
served the def ndant which not returned TO him
In the April Of 1854 Captain Greene gave him another
document In lieu Of bank notes recovered the $500 bill
susl upon from Mr.. o'Fahcrty In lieu Of another docu
mcnt the $500 bill also brought by Mr.. UFiaherty
upon giving up another docum snt.
Cross exsmned-Had had the pleasure upon several
occasions Of being here never had more discsuraging
visit has the beautiful scenery Of the
try was here in Dublin and went 10 the Msrshalsea
one occasion 20 debtor Of his; first saw Mr.
onlaherty in August, 1858, the agent OF Lord Dnn
kein saw Mr. Gregory while the turf witness lives
IN Duke street Wesminster; Nos. % and 90 Jcr-
nyn street scptimus Carlisle lives AZ g. and tailor Of
es IN 1870 lived In London at No. cs Jermyn street
IN business as much then las now; occasionally lends
money does not consider himself q bill dscounter.
Mr.. RoflestcneDid you ever keep gambling hou se2
The witness said though he could the question
~ once, II was one that had nothing say the issue
he then added in answer 10 further questous that he
had been in court a justice before this plaintiff