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

biz. In order 70 show how rue this lie, refer %
Roberts e'fcr 10 Heilnan, August q, length. In
had asserted. All thai had been fact, received a.
that time by Roberts in New York was SlSS 8a2 all
s., vas received On a. 1ys Sasss was only a.
August, in advance S274 500 he says in TINS e
ter ard though this not ali 20 the Coum
bps, il not then known how it ought be appor
ioped precisely among four veeses for the Columbus
ard under these circumstances with no accounts fr ,m
Panama, end imperfect rom San Francisco, and
from PecK. he might we'll write to plaintiff tina.
there was nothing in his opinion, coming TO h beyond
what he hs already received But the position OF the
parties Is one OF ansgonism dispute to the ,cura
cy Of cath other the asserting charging lind
ing fault; the other denying sxps ming and
to convince After all this, they together No evil
dence throws hight on thsi- interviews They deal to
gehtr in person how long eoe not appear. What was
said either s e-what information communicated or
wthholdeI-what explanations asked given, no one
that Heimsn sels out to Roberts all claim for past
profits, and the Court Aked 70 overlook this
sena Ceaing with each otoer, and the ten days during
which, or some Of which, they negotiated ard to take
mp this correspondence OF prbr date, and submit the
TO the jury of wfu and fraudulent suppress
sion, coneeslmtn Mt and sde and
Of ind, trusting conhd ence the ohes-condiene
tually betrayed and without tte opportunity
of detection on the part Of the Victim cannot believe
that verdict which should ld the affirmative of This
would be JUSTIFIED BY the evidence. As to the vessel
plaintiff relies the letter of the Sd Of February 1851
courage plaintiff to the Of the Columbus and
to mseao him to the value Of bis interest 10 the ves
ss time Il.
to plaintiff agreed to sell the vessel to Rowland
Aspnvan for $40 O1o and that, to carry out said
terest should be secured and that the defendant raudu
ently concealng the agreement and price Ct vessel
him By making him believe that the value
Of bis i. hss greatly h. offered
NJ nj
and having confidence in the defendant Gid sell
his interest TO him fer that amount The relation in
in respect the Of the vessel undoubtedly
OF tbfdence. am strongly inclined TO doubt whether
Roberts to ha other management Of these
four than the selling of tickets, procuring Of
reishts furnishing supplies aud advising as to times of
running in all which is scarcely possible to srppose he
acted without the cooperation OF Mr.. Law HIS agency
these vessels resulted consequence and
say part OF his position Treasurer and Agent OF the
Uri,ed States Mail Steamship Company, which ran 10
connection with these steamers. Even II, however, the
fducisry relation did not extend TO the vessel still h
Guild dealt with defendant in respect 70 his
share TO the disadvantage Of the latter by awaiting him
self Of the knowledge which he might have acquired
hs capscity OF shl ps husband. Sustaining unques
relation Of confidence 10 that character the
plaintiff he could not avail himself Of the advantages
which it gave him to obtain bargain out Of the deien
dant in respect 10 the vessel The two subjects
connected TO render the application OF the rule
hat extent proper Now the certainly presents
this feature thai there is evidence to show that
Roberts any connection is proved have had with
The and sale If the Columbus TO the Pacific Mail
Steamship Company was acting in any other capacity
than member OF the Board of Directors Of the United
States Msil Steamship Company, and as JOINT owner
in the ship ITSELF Yet it cannot oe denied
qured Of the earnings o. the vessel and her
may have had material influence on his mind in
determining him whether to accede TO the ST.
not. That he opposed 20 this arrange
ment ia abundantly proved by Wetmore but the
given lot that it would interfere with the profits OF
the Columbus but would be preudical to the interests
cf the United States Mail steamship Company. Assam
ing however, that the confidential relation did extend
in some degree at least 10 the vessel itself speak
correctly that it qualified and to some extent
s.ricttd the otherwise, clear right, which inde
pendant Of distinct share in the vessel the de-
e, dant would have had in the absen;e Of fraud TO
with the plaintiff the purchase Of his share the
footing OF stranger how does the case stand on the
evidence ard is there enough TO 60 to the jury on the
question the violation and abuse Of thus confidence
the defendant? That Roberts acquainted for
weeks before his letter to ceiendsnt of the 80 of Feb
ruary, with the fact OF the tendency Of the negota
which resulted in the sale Of the four vesses is
thr k, from al the evidence quite clear. Indeed with
out assumr this the letter Of the Sd February becomes
IT. elf unin eIigble. conceoe that the defendant
bound in god faith to have suppressed from Heilnan
nothing winch he knew in respect to this ransAcon
in fact, calculated 10 deceive the plaintiff to
the value of his share. Ii there evidence TO show
that be did sos The two letters Of Roberts to
der Gates Of January 80 and December the ID in
neither Of which is there any suson TO th, subject
The letter Of the I'd u February that portion OF II
principally relied upon by the plaintiff Is folows:-
Gas cesired to write about the prospects OF sell
pQ your interest Of in the steamer Columbus
when mine sold, have now to advise that nothing
yet positively settled, but an very anxious . ge. rio
Of my interest in the Columbus well the rou Die OF
running ships route both ENDS of which fsr
from home The difficulty about the negotiation no~ is
that the parties expect in and make stock
Of IT, And to take payment a in stock for my int
avoid it, but STILL may be induced to accept the
proportion. Thisis wholly umnteligble, except the
idea thst Aeilmsn already acquainted with the fact
of negotiation with third parties
which involved the sale of Roberts interest The very
language implies it, The Language Of the postscript con
firms ths:-sThe date named 70 the parties when the
sale should take effect the 18th Of August" What
partiesy What sale 1t is scarcely credible that
information OF SO important Transaction to pat,
having like interest," with himself in the subject Of the
letter But suppose this was the srst ntmaton that
ytnd doubt clear iptimation That it referred the
then pending negotiations with the two steamship
panes, cannot admit Of doubt for it refers to the
nost important particular Of that negotiation
the taking stock in payment for the four vessels
When Heinan then dealt with Roberts in person In the
interval between the Sd and 18th OF February he did It,
either with knowledge tf the proposed arrangement, O.
with such intimaton in respect thereto from Roberts
put hm il quiry and led the very transaction it.
SELF In the postscript Roberts invites him to judge for him
se-You Will suit your own convenience 10 this sr
as wish to offer no Inducements to you to sell unwss
feel 1t is clearly interest to dispose of it, To
say in the absence Ut any other evidence, that he made
in ignorance Of mis- transaction, without the
OF knowing it. and through abuse of his conf
dence going further than think would be warranted
by the proof Even in equity the presumption against
defendant arising from the confidential relation would III
my judgment be conse erably weakened by this letter
Unless start with the presumption Of fraud agains.
Roberts, and every line and word with the eye Of
SUSPICION there is certainly nothing in this letter. viii h
conveys the idea Of intent to deceive. But is
fenced that the Language of this letter calculated to
dshearten plaintiff about the value of his interest The
parts referred 10 are where the writer speaks Of ths
troube OF running ships route both ends of which
tar from homen 1t is said this isinoonsstent with
his idea Of his continuance in the ne which to
run from New York TO San Fran CISCO Defendant must
be judged by his language When he speaks
both ends of which were tar from home he could have
referred to nothing else than LAWS line embracing the
four steamers end of which ia Sal Francisco
and tie other in Panama. They in beyond
his CONTROL and this expression OF reluctance Is enrey
consistent with all his previous correspondence. Nor do
see any inconsistency between this and his owning
stock in the new line, whic TO be managed by
him but by other persons and in which prospects
Of gain without personal trouble to himself large
But, he says, 81 very anxious TO get rid of my in
ter est in the Columbus Was not this truep He gives
the TACT hat, 'a the matter stands,
the board OF direction controlling the ships in the Pa
eli al dat tha