The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-03-16
Marine Court.

Before Hon Judge Maynard.
TIE KNOW NOTHING FEsTIvAL-sUIr PoB THE Cosrg'
OF THE ENTERTAINMENT, ON WHICH THE JUDY DO
NOT AGREE-fEARDING JUDGE.
MARCH ~ Wm ". Bost'es u.s. jos ~ Barker, join
N. Genia, Bzi yam Rpo John * Er :ses (Al5crnsan),
RnfM f. Crane, Josers s. 7aplor Jos. T. E6liag, c. C.
Fur, Louis " Gorer J. L. Smith and ohers-Tbis case
has occupied the cnr hroe days. and han already
oiised. The plaintiff keeps refractory in B,oad Ssy aud
he defer dsn's ABOUT twer ~ eight uioe It IL a.
egeo weIe committee Who Undertook TO get mp Know
Nohing supper and oee5ra+iop the S.h of January
last At the Academy Of Music The psjn,iG iar.ished
the eataaee drinkses and not having pay
ment therefor, he The DEF ndsntr whom are
known prominent bers of the Know Nothing Order
M. .n re- sno% y
Ore curious feature In the is th2t Mr. L Buckley
and Mr. chsunsey chsner Americans, and the latter Al
time Know Noibpg candidate for the oic, Of Dis
Iict Attorrsy appear as cunsel sgans the Know No
tbirg committee and Mr. Richard Busts, ar alien born
thing candioare Tor the Mayorsy Of this city Pne plain
I'LL claims $3.50 for providing oysters cold roeats cham
psgne &c, for between 200 and 400 persons kost Of
the defendants at The val md took part IN the
proceedings OF the evening. Testimony vas given
there was great sd there and that sarn enjoyed
biTsslf ssone' sll went .'rnerry lnsgriage be''
native Americans m the order OF the evening" but
alter all the enjoyment came the unpea ant rA Of the
busness-"who was to psy TIE pipery' The desndan's
ccpy thei liability aud OF them insist that hey
the ctmmttee and they had not e sas action Of
participating IN the goriacefion 1t appeared however,
liz.
joyed the supper partock Of two bostlss Of and
called for mere chics sns.
After other testimony given counse icr dssndants
moved for dismissal M the complaint ~ sg ainst Mr.
Genn, Mr. Barker and Mr. Van R:pe:: Some warm words
snuationp. He insisted hat the could
be discharged from the complaint the witnesses
had sworn tsat be told psi iii that Mr. Barker and Mr.
Germ would stand by what he did On the occasion.
Judge May said that If they cond p.ovs tina. Mr.
Barker and Mr. Genin were present when ihe witness
said 20, and did not dissent from IL taat they had
TO he 10
credible testimony for the jury al TO the sbiy o. those
Mr. scbaer said he aia not understand no the case
had been dashed up since It adjou1ns previous
Mr.. Busted repuda.ed the iasnuat.ou. Is impl,in9
csnsure upon the Court
The Judge said-The insinu aton Of Mr. sch.er is even
Mr. scSsfIsr ssid he was not going to 'e The Judge
there what be thought Of him. bus woud hsve 40 %.
lection to give him his opinion out of Court.
Tbs Judge-Any whore you please sir.
Mr.. Scbatfer then, turning to an Ger, sa,d-Here
take hote books back to the library law books
1bo Court granted the motion for az 20 M.fs
Genin and Van Ripper, but Refused the notion Mr.
Barker
Mr.. Van Ripper was tb IN called as Witness for the de-
fence and depesed that he the order FOR the supper
required 70 ruppy; witness was chairman q the
committee Mr.. Barker did not know of ihe orders he
gsve; he had no authority 10 &C. for Mr.. Barker.
case WAS 70 30 tiled Bfe s Others upon the law and tbs
evidences and that they had nothing TO with what Mr.
have they any hrg do With what Mr. Bowlss hss
lost may lose. TIE defendants are sued upon con-
tract and In order to maintain the action tho plaintiff
must give evidence that these parties contracted with
him for the supper and this contract might either oy
SPECIAL agreement with tie plaintiff such contract
may be inferred from the circumstances injected With
the transaction, II there are circumstances which
would warrsns them in drawing such infersnces Whom
positive evidence Ia introduced going to shog tha sxch
contract could have been made the jury woud b.
called upon pass upon the other posi- i've evidence
The plaintiff introduced chain Of circumstances 10 show
that the def ndants were liable by inference; but
oepce 10 that effect. On the o-her aide there
Is the positive evidence OF Mr.. Van Moer that
be himself made the contract chairman OF the com,
mttee Of which Mr. Bsrksr WAS not even n mernhay He
0he Juege spoke of Mr. Barker only because IN The sut
could not be maintained against him it cannot be seainst
any Of the other defendants Tie Judge then proceei ed
to review the Testimony carefully after which, he said
he had Do been able to find anything that would warrant
him In aipR the positive evidence was not to be credited
There 10 no evidence Of contract made between the
plaintiff and defsndant and the testimony TO that eject
any, is of the very slightest oharac.er It IL shown
thai some OF them were at the festival The whole
Is reduced simply to tnis-Who gave the support The
plainahs testimony proves that H. was given by the
Native American Club. Nr. Barker is NOT member Of
that club. Who would naturally b. invited guests the
club or ousldesS These the questions That would
present themselves to the jury and they not TO
jump to conclusions II requires strong evidence to
make these desendans liable as II would in cntracs
Tor building house or coDsnusng railroad II there
sush evidence, you will End for the painsn II not,
for the defendants.
The jury unable TO agree and were discharged.