The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-03-08

been MADE at sny period OF time before he closed
with the plaintiff 10 February. 1851 The OF de-
fendsnts Whols OF complaint want
vouchers TO give HIM -ea Die information. Ia
with these letters plaintiff and de endAnt be
taken corresp snderce OF Roberts with Ctarck Ro
ben plains TO sharlck late January TO- 1851
in letter Of that date that he could &c,
from the the Pacific side and though the steamer
bad been runDrg year he could not ccurately close
single voyage, and that he had not yet got perfect
one Of the STEAMERS He then sdyerts to h,s receipt
from law Of Charlcks accounts of disbursements
ct San which he are in proper form except
what relates to the clerks business board the several
stps sud he bsgs Chsrhck to try and put the matter
straight with the clerks He then states that he had
hut had not rot the requisite returns om the clerk
the ship and him 10 see that they come on with
the He then states that he had received Captain
Pecks accounts and concludes his letter BY saying "a"
easily close the first two voyages Of the Columbus
IS can get an account Of SUBJ Of her tickets Issued
by used the other ships" There certainly
nothing npesch the coed faith Of this letter It
was written plaintiff but to stranger and carries
Of scheme in conspiracy with Charck, to csosivs the
plaintiff which is incredible The only two letters Of
rs and February TO- In netr Of which does he speak Of
having received additional accoun though he refers to
letters received from Charlick. His letter to He
man. OF August ~ 1885, very significant He refers to
Captain Peck the captain of the Columbus, and says
THAT he has nothing from him that bears the resem-
bance en- account though had SO long and often
urged him to close the bus Of each voyage and send
the accounts to him speedily possioe-that ne had
not sent him = single way bill lay roll or voucher Of
that down to February 1851 Roberts had not, sup
poeed he had the necessary vouchers to make his
accounts. In the letter Of August 81 he states that
at til he had advanced s274 900 which
than The receipts of all the steamers the Pacific line
Is there any thing seriously to imppgp the truth Of
the subsequent TALL shows indeed favorable balance
Roberts, but that be- and yet Roberts have been ut
tery unable to have stated an account before that date
and his large advances may well have induced h To
believe that there thing due the associates
than they had already received But this is not all
fall 1851 and then 1t two three months To
make them cut Charck had no certain formation in
respect to these until his return to New York
in the summer Of that year. How important this ac-
is evident from the fact that the balance
against the Columbus a. that place turned out 10 be
SGT, $685. True with this amount deducted, IS s
shown. there larger amount Of prof earned
than plaintiff received; but this is shown by figuring
from cata which Roberts never had IN his possession plor
to the purchase OF laiI and is only ascertaned in
the light Of ali the accounts fully made up BY parties
with them long tier the fosr ships OK which
the Columbus one had ceased 70 q distinct
line and when the had all been ascertained
Tnat these disbursements could not have
Rcoert a. the time OF his purchase least that
there is strong probability that they not SO known
will appear from mere inspection OF the accounts rem
dered Charlick by Rober himself, Thus there
received on the first voyage in February, 1851, say
s5ael7, but the disbursements chAgeaoe against
1850, down to August 20 Of that year, and there
two additional items against those receipts,
50 the second voyage there received in March,
1850, $3.50 and item cred tied to same voyage
under date November So 1885, of $500 and the dsburse
r1ents chargable against it period down 20 No.
venber 1850 On third voyage there was received
April 1850 S40,975 The disbursements aga inst it
from April the Sd down December 81, Of that year.
appears therefore, the very face Of this account,
that the disbursements properly chageabe against each
voyage ran through period OF several months succeed
ing that in which the passage and freight moneys Of the
trip received by Roberts, and therefore until all the
accounts OF disbursements were in and apportloned
state what the profits OF that voyage that dur
ing the whole Of 1850 there period during which,
nISei The evidence ne could have stated an sccsun'
nent that psnt les to show the defendant in
sion large omoney and ofthe large baan
which together constitute the profits the excess of which
the at which be purchased he claims
the presumption Of fraud. How is it possible to say
the lace This account that Roberts could any ime
before it actually up stated the amount
plaintiff? But sgain-he coal aud provisions fur
ished Il ship ut Panama charged W the quantity
ano without prices and these prices not ascer.
tanned until they were fixed by Charck when
he made up the final account in the fall OF 1851.
! might pass over the fact that the very basis
which the accounts to be made up was not fixed
until the Of 1851 Roberts claiming that the on
lick csin ing the contrary. express opinion the
proprety of this claim it is enough that open
question: at least in the fall Of 1851 aud it would
have consumed nearly all the profits if allowed Ro
bert claimed it should and in the teeth Of Ro
berts interest there seem. reason to doubt his sin
certify but there is evidence that the idea
tertaineo early February 1851, unless it FORE
sLacowed 10 letter to plaintiff Of 29.h OF May, 1850.
pass it over as lot influencing my opinion 5ut laying
10 ia che rood with The fsoh, ~ the coal inc onnnt -
tb;s cba,us vas not scnav sraJ =, rb.ri;c nt;, ~
eo,b ~ lsnpary ISL ss 10 states On his aIs;n.,
.nd ,hs,ssara cnnH ~ ,,oss;h 49, 49, $500 =. p'
harts as esriv - Iath Fehrrayvv .srta;nir o ~ !;
the calm rsyev ~ th;s sv;dsnca hsi,sra tpot s5i,
which shona find that Roharts was scnnemtad vth 80
state of the of the Columbus prior this
acconr. N resnact thareto Nv that IN shas 10 49,, ~
Hein.n he ntentonallv Or knovrolv m,s,ad b,, md
ut,ared faiseboods ~ cn1.saIsd 20 49, ~
was himself nossesse3 could he snstaneJ Ro, tsa IN
onrv INST not Ton here W.s tha na;n,;g ,rSaIn A.
nennent an Pobsrfs for n,s ;nformatons uad ~ ~
means or nj Information b;mels, .ct,a,
iv ignorant in ali resnecs of the cond;tinn ~ tho
connts9 Was he actnaJlv n1ised hv The SiIasad s;Ia
NJ Re harto :, Nv he sta,smen,s in ~ Th 10
ones,ions ubinI must 10 answa,ed mrn,a,;.i 80 :.
los 81 70 iha extsrt ~ 1natino ,s s ~ -,
case can o. N The inv Csn,sn Pei snnears - bs
been in cen.innal Observation-Disclosures ;tb ,ba nsin,,T ~
C.rIs;n ~ tbe Co,mbns he rnnst b.ve 49, 49, az,
nnmSar a. GERS Or 80 tho ,on.
ot nm ssaoe nooney Teceiyed IN pohsrs ~ Se VT 90
sant acconnt ~ ysce;nts and dehits az C,nn Ia hs
scce.s N al, ,bo .cconnts ard y,.tto,s ao; th
hin at San cisco II vas this same nerson ~ h