The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-12-17
Supreme COurt-Special Term.
Before Hon. JudgeIRoosevelt.
TIE GOLD HILL MIDINa OPERATION.


Isc. D-Edear ". Voris dss. D. A. kccredy and p. J.
<rrcu.-Thh bill ned to get rid Of the consequences
81 unfortunate speculation In Gold Hi stock, the
ANsscd ground Of fraud and misrepresentation.
ROOSEVELT, 1.-The plaintiff says that he IL practising
DAyscisn In The town Of New Rochelle, and from that
okcumsance presumed, would have the court to 10
ts, although he does mot in express terms that
versed in the ways OF the Stock Exchange
he d. iendan be saysalthough one Of them McCredy
nas his residence in the countryare city note brokers
Jendsnt kcCredy Il Is alleged, were babs Of socis
intimacy, the former being NOT only the ncighSor, bu
trequen, vniis both friendly and professional 70 his
house Ia the country, Of which occasions In .
- '1s ASsus S the con-
market, and more particularly upon the PROBABLE advao
,Age OF . suggested investment or speculation IN "God
Hil Mining Company Of which McCredy said ne had
purchased for himself two thousand shares, the
markc, price being three dollars p,r share The doc
,or being thus given TO understand that pretty large
operation In stock might be undertaken upon /" very
ANAL amount Of money alter few days reflection and
Guided 70 Try bis fortune he accordingly provided him
ssf With the necessary Margin as II IL termed, Of
Eve hundred shares paid another visit 10 McCreiy
determined. ss be ssid TO see what there In this
Gold HIl-" AcCredy at his request, took the money
oeedng three dollars per "rhe doctor (says the
vxness whose both conversations took pac)
iRs among other subjects upon golden stock pros.
pect, and svincing high degree OF condolences In re-
honestly concurred. % % tins point, whsiever may
subsevueny have been tho DOCTORS suspicious there
no ground whatever In ME evidence for oharxe Of
Srand The delusion, any, was mutual Both parties
aae self deiuded, or alike deluded by others.
Subsequently, however, AcCredy in repeated con.
ed he doctor that be had made the desired at
the rate agreed upon, OF three dollars per share. He
i've the fra, inisrview he presented nm
. written account with charge TO cash paid Gold
Hl stock, September J. SEQ lnerest 10 January "a,
las days at sevtn per cent st7 20" II nov appears
that there such "cash paid and such pur.
chase rade and the pantn therefore, claims that the
money be sdvAbced and also . subsequent small pay.
neni should be refanded 70 him. ana that his note tor
NE balance should be delivered 70 be cancelled. To
thh claim 10 objected by the paintn that the LIST Of
ssrsember, 1854 70 days amer Dr. vors had request
ed The defendant TO purchase for him. a. already stated
he 1.-THE ieferdan) did In fact purohase OF Morgan 20.
thai number Of snarcs Bot The purchase, appears,
twsr four shass per share and no, for cash. bu, on
time, deliverable In si1ty days, sellers option, and
rot In fact DEFY and PAID for I'll the soh Of oober,
rteAry proved and the defendant alleges that n
made IN execution Of Or. ycris' order-an allegation
which, although probably true, not legally proved,
ard 10 inconsistent win the account presented 70
Ir. vors, or which the note vas given. And the
Low charge the possor with the price Of th,sc
I've hundred shares A. investment made
Ne osnno- arsi became 3, at sas, doubtful whether
purchase II srtr days sellers opinion,r within
.ssoeres Sy NJ. own r,pors. both verbal And vp,sen
Of the terms OF sale from saying that the contract 10
ssesd Of being Tor "cSn,' was an optional one on The
par, 81 the seller 70 time, and at rate OF and
Eve cishu instead Of three dollars per share and third
~ because net eetopped from proving, he has no, in
tact proved that the purchase which be made, dde
rent from the reported In truth purchase for
Nv. sor instead Of himself 10 shcse name tho contract
wss made. Hs answer IN that res peel although duly
and although containing very natural explans
ion Of the transaction 10 not under the present system
a procedure. such cvic ence In his own favor the
ssart can act upon II may satisfy any mind, AZ GER
tany does mine that moral wrong Intended and
that 10 throw loss on the defendant when
ell the gain had there been gain, would probably have
gene 70 the plaintiff great hardship yet, viewing
Ne matter udiciay, compelled 20 decide that the
defence 10 NOT established Under the circumstances,
however and In the exercise Of that discretion which ID
equity the Law confevs upon the court deem n
proper 10 charge the With either ntres
o. coats, Judgment TO refund the two pay meats and
surrender The note