The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-07-16
supcsior Court-special Term.
Before Judge Hoffman.


BY 4. T. STEWART g 90.
Geo,qe Slater us. Curtis Judson, a. r. Ste,r1yt
E. Co., and o,has.- This case, which has been on
tr,a for several days, will determine the distrbu-
ton of fund Of about S2S 900 now in court, arising
from the sale of the furniture Of the Bievort House,
which took place in April last. The suit Is insi-
tuted by George Slater, who was formerly the stew
ard tf Judsons Hotel, and subsequently OF tho Nav
York Hotel, TO fore lose . chattel mortgage for
SIS 900 on the furniture Of the Brevoort House,
given to him BY Judson % security for moneys
oar ed by Slater to Judson during period Of seve
ral years, and for balance of salary which had
accr ued from 1862 to 1854. After the making of
his mortgage tucson confessed Judgment to A. 7.
Stewart Go. for about $23 000 and A. r. Ste sart
Go. claim to have lived the'eupon an exscoslon
Of the alleged levy the property was eIcumoered BY
several other morgags besiees thst of Sister, to an
amount exceeding tie proceeds OF sac. The pro-
brought ilto court to be distrdbu-ed amoog
the several parties having liens upon the pro-
perry. as their interests might be deter
pinned TIE case noW comes up for hear.
the validity Of ths eins claimed, s1d thsif priori
ties. Tie plant clsirs, BY virtue OF his mortgage,
TO be paid out Of the furd before A. Z. Stewart Il
their execution, the mortgage to SLAYER and the
Other mortesess, are invalid, and that they a.e en-
tilted 10 b. fret PAID the amount Of ther Judgment.
The plaintiff exsmirs d, as witness, Curtn Judson,
who proved tbst Slsssr had loaned nin, at va'ious
times prior to 1852 sums amounting In the aggro-
gate to about 81 00 that be bad, SINGS 1862 loaned
INN a 900; and that there was D balance OF about
81 500 cue Slater on his salary, from 1901 OF 1852
to 1861 that these Gums, with the iuteress amount
Cd to 1ver SIS 000 a. that, In December 1854, he
executed the mortgage in question, 70 secure that
amount; that Slater rad been In bis employment
for about ten years, and losoei MN al sae money
- uvhi ho NO xsnd
ter) saved from bis esInngs daring tue ten years,
and considerable sum SDich Re mad when ne en-
tered Judsons employment After cros examine
ton BY the ceursel u Messrs. Stewart u appeared
Il at about tie year 1851 or 1852, Judson was To-
deb ed {, Slater 10 81 900; that a. tia, time, 6la
ter's salary was 81 200 per annum; shss Judsoa
being about to male an extensive addition to his
hotel, and to set no The large refsctoy which was
subsequently, carried on there, then proposed TO
Slater To enter iro . coparsne.sbip with
him at Judson's hotel, and leave the amount
pital in the conos,n, or that Slater should, il
he preferred, continue in the service Of Jodson, at
. salary Of 81 500 FER annum. The witness stated
that this increased salary vas allowed for Skaters
cuties were much increased by The addition Of tbs
refecio9y, and thai he was valuable nan for In
dustry and integrity, and that ne preferred payirg
that saary paying his debt to Slater aua allowing
T. Stewart Co., In his evidence, claimed that the
mortgage to Slater was usurous, for the reason that
an inueased salary vas allowed for the use Of his
tsr's Whole claim Was forfeited. Ths council
for the plaintiff cbje tied 70 the defence usu-
~ being scs up on the trial, for the reason that
no such defence had beeD set up by A. 7. Schwartz
Co., in their answer. The Court stated t,at under
recent decision q the Cout o, Aqpeals that objec-
ton could not avail, inssmuch a. il would be COM
petent even for the General Term to alloy
after the tlial. The counsel for the plain
tf then insisted that If the question Of
usuIy Vas to te raised (sl .hough he WAS satisfied
that the defence would not avail Msssrs. A. T.
Stewart d CD that defence should BE- pus upon the
record aud subscribed aud sworn to By some Of the
members OF the firm Of A. T. Stewart Co., and
that the cause should not be proceeded With uotil
that feimslity was complied with. Toe caanse, for
A. T. Stewart Il Co. declined making motion for
leave 70 amend their answer at this stage OF the
case, and the court irtimsted that It was uoneces
sary to do 70 then, a. II might b. done at general
the general term would ha.d y allow tie privilege
OF an amendment when the case cams before them,
II at privilege bad been tepdered a. special term
ard declined. The court then decided tnst Il the
defence was to DO Insisted upon the amendment
must be made en- tho spot, and must be verified by
some 1.-THE member Of the firm of A. T. Stewart l.
Co. The counsel for the plaintiff then insisted that
ne court should impose terms a. coz !itioa OF 81,
owing the amer DIN. mt, and stated taa: be should
be satisfied with the imposition OF the smallest
smount Of costs wnish could b, imposed
exceeding. twelve ard half cents, so - to
Tie Court then or6e.ed that the amendment should
be made on payment OF 81 costs, the amendment
to be drawn ard sworn to before the cause would
be pro eeded with. The counsel for A. T. Stewart
q Co. ten proceeded to DRAG the amendment sat-
tn g up the defence Of u-ury. Mr. Basroughs, Of
the firm Of A. T. Ste rart Il Co., shortly made his
appearance In court, and under the dech On Of his
tpssiosd sn a. s.orS q the a
thereupon about to proceed 10 examine tbs witness
IN support Of the defence Of ueury, when he was
interrupted By The csursel for the plaintiff, who ia
as cor dtiop for admitting the defence OF us7ry,
should be paid before il was pro,eeied with.
Some den uyrcr Was made to this demand, and Il was
suggested that Msssrs A. T. Stswars & Co were
amply rspcnsi .e fer The amount. Tas counsel for
the Ilaintif state II Of be did not QUESTION the pc
cur iLry rep visibility Of MessYs. A. T. Stewart &
Co., but 10 preferrd that parties pleading usury
directed e &C. i for M.s Ste ssI q esy sse
amount. He the,eupon handed 81 10 the pliotiff7s
council, who Immediately handed it over to the
Ila,n,in and stated that the plaintiff would consent
morteaGe. he triel then proceeded. The ooa1ssl
for the p'silti tonfendsd that the defence OF
usury, even Il utury was proved, could only b In
trPcsed BY Mr.. Judson, the borro yer OF tbs money,
and thatthe Messrs. Stewart could rot avail them.
selves CT II TO de'eas the plaintiffs claim. The
Court stated that 1t wac very strongly Of the impress
sion that the defer &c could not AVIAN the Messrs.
Stewart, but reserved the point for furLh,r co1sd-
Grafton. Mr.. Judson, in prcsepc e Of the curt,
expressly oisclaims the defence Of usur7 on his
part, ard none Of the other parties TO the sos ap
pred for leisure 10 aterpose It, Adjourned to Non.
day, July l6.
The TRAGEDY AT FoRr MoHRnRY.-chs circum-
stances IN connection sith the death of Louis Loup,
at Fo. Mciierry, On the llth Instant, are said u
be CT more aiocious character than was q. irst
reported On the authority Of gentle nan in the
uniHd States servi e. IL WAS yesterday stated that
on Wednesday night Loup was making q uoise in
one Of the buildif gs, when Morr,w was ,rdered by
the officer on guard to 20 to him and tel him to b,
quiet. Morew approached Loup, and, Ia execution
OF the order to quiet him, commenced bsasing lin
IN very severe manner, when another party inter
Tered, and csueed him TO desist his inhumsn treat
Mtnt. Morrow afterwards vent to him and com.
menced the beating second time, and called upon
ole CT the soldiers TO assist to throw ain do va
stairs. Lcup requested, In an sgonizipg tone, that
he might be stot to erd his suferings, and al this