New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-06-15

o,ttaf 'ir r.., F,st ~h.le il "a ,sna 81 q
Co. FL FcWr stewart b srii!r vita that And TIE
f f ,s,rJ ~ ,f P,, s.-s 81 n. cor mi 1t "a
viii he tsr c'rcTs In Is o. sud hs ssare coaar-urr
'hs oi tf~ r-ceirt ~ deed ~ the Ssfinh-
80 90 crrvsysres ~ se~s- in s52 lsad. by
h Bans the tt,r rh- PherH Bank in March
1890 forbid 'h, River Rasin Bsrt rm byns ihe drs ~
o thc en' with that Bs1k and rrcePi oy s~
r''o-ry aseat Of tie PhsuI Bank Of varou,
yirc. q tie ensrt q AuEus; 1852 BY shch IA
sr.trw lrts Ver conveyed 10 the Bank and ~ iaI,
DEL fea wta ftv r--uais g 20 pad by them; and OF tHe
&; -ecl AZ q. .vs'y 4 'acA deed 81, 1870.
II "a possible 70 say Tat ihty "o.i9 not h.Hc sFe1y
.r Uf .Hrtsf end gent agtltS
is - 80. 80 eia..,I tie Sat- ~ts tie Sas
q these sins lad tles II own these fcts u b, p nv
iron ih srv Cur, Of Justice Gould ever hsys sustained
,rd t j he River Rsi.n Bank there ~ss not The
Bank there oly The equity that The Ei.cs AGENT had
t. To- rt IL the STAT hch he did not o. sni the Bank
ld tccou aPFed srten yess before that " had not been
b., several points or the par, ofhe defendants mus, here he
-O.cri -rs~u- thar cers Of tn state nae
% NOS. OF sbs-e fact; In ihe r, ~ pss .s non, e!
Ry Rlisa Bur again tie forts 4 TIE desnesni' celsd
IL st SD wcc no' resumed until ls& know % no Pi'nere
wtich viii iusfy in at-rbq;ins 20 the Board % A9ti,o,
= sgtrts q TIE STATE n 1871 ne knowledge OF "a,
Attorney G, uera. q 1875 q previous years lGrhhs v
C1hti Ucsaar's Rep. ls aa ea.es The previous COM
uaticu, viutiste The def ntsrt from fraudulent con
cenrt tu; insufficient 20 charge tho Board wa inormi
A..n +, 4. insisted that tie evidence Of the member. Of
tie Rosrd prove lat before them. and what Vas m
known rsnissab' that The record conclusive sud shuts
before 'le Bsrd except what is Pccihsd and nothing to
lave te.u omitted vi ioh ight have been before H.
The Pook Of Record Of the Board produced and shows
,ro,fc sci.ici I, IS copied literally INTO the Complaint
r. 81 Tie ts-a osrster OF Tue entries Of other claims
vs. dcri,d ir ReNord vs. Hri,h- as Barbour Rep s27
-httA~ statute rru that spprs,ers should MAKE
their appraisal ind deterniI on snd sign
tier the was directory merely Iae ne.cco
sd ryscse the which the right ct the state pro
es.ai - n ~. .u:'.. go. 4, w Sie -, va, ,'yS
H. the view the character Of the Auditors award
,s,o v s ras,, upon The adjustment
further urgd that the BOARD Of Auditors i without sc
srt accessible II kuowdle and was 50 neglch IN
.ckua 20 bring the within the other brNn'h Of me
urde rorsy in tie case Il public afsg' - IN mat OF
tny. vood MiT,t Is HaGi,y vs. the Coinrnon~esth
Fpt - Nh. sfrr Otherwise We, the tvo most material cts
prohibition payment snd the settlement with Se"
ree I,t i,sn,ac,sps Of ne Geen9,", WIN 'ng %
hold these reeectu in rot discovering these matters
NAV doctrine Of constructive notice ha1 OF ne
teen much restricted the English judges holding That IN
cirn should be such enable the Court 90 say not
have scouirrd Ie otif with which is sought hun
that be would have ACQUIRED but tor h' gross IA
SET Eng; L aud FL. Rep, - ,,,-,-
The principles srd points which have stated in this opinion
Lad NJ 20 clear that 20 the amount Of the dram
ou a., Bank Of the Raisiu the State entitled 10
go Morton had drawn il out md could bsye deposited tie
po1sd. 10 the Use the Had toe Bank when aP
p.d the settlement Of October leo distinctly intorme!
H. STATE rchqushInen Of al claim 70 the securities sd
it, Ncuye the State for Indemnity the equity might
sufficient. But, upon the whoc see no ssac1oIy
.rouuo o. uske distinction. o.,
IN srat Nd, la hrig able arrive 81 conclusion without
sy pttatioron the integrity IT the officers Of the PhenS
Bar K They sed with fidelity to their principals snd without
clmiI silly toward the State.
Tbey wtre acting under honest but deluon :, to
Their NIGHTS and the responsibility OF the State. But their nno
never basis a claim, and ought not now t.
firm bar sgaL.t the recovery Of the money That money
paid By SCENTS under The naueLce OF deluson aud
M the
hdtr and equity would have sanctioned the res
sTpt ofLc The caidu ct sHBmWm jas aud the pr0rda
al tie decision. .
The plaintiffs are entitled judgment tor the amount paid
"