New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-08-26
Before Jadge CLsSXE.
F.LsE PRRTESsE CASE.

Eliss III. Main egt i-ucius To- bulklfJ
This Yves case for "a application 70 dir charge tle
deiendsnt from an order of arrest. The facts IN the
case az stated in the plaintiff at iavlt, were thai on
the2lth of April 1857, defendant applied to him for
a lean of $780, and to induce plaintiff TO lend the
money represented that he was the owner OF l,O0O
shares al 800 each of the Stcckbndge and Plttsed
Railroad Company, which he would transfer TO the
plaintiff al collateral security for the oan deponsnt
then gave check for the amount 10 Buckley who pre-
tended 10 be in great hurry and that he could not
then transfer esid stock that few days after Bulk
ley repre- sented that he perfectly responsible and
that there was no occasion for the transfer OF the
stock; that on the 9th of May 1871, defendant OBJ
tanned further loan of $3.50 for eight days from de-
porent by representing that he was also the owner
Of 100 Shares of 500 each, IN the Rutland and
Whitehall Railroad Company, which, a. he stated,
were good dividend paying stocks, aad at par 10 the
stock market. On the faith OF these representations,
deporent gave him the $780, and extended the time to
pay the 5000 for days. AT that time defendant
sso represented that the stocks ofthe Sockordge and
Pitsfed H. X. G.. Company were at par IN the market,
and perfectly good and deponent, relying on the truth
of mr. BE- statement did not press Tor tue Transfer OF
the stock as promised by defendant. That the stock
is not woth as much as represented, neither had 1t
be- en- for long time previous to ssid representations.
Deponent else states that some tune In May 1891 de-
ponent had employed defendant, who Is an attorney
A. law 10 collect claim against one John Mowstt,
and that Buckley collected the sum of $40 thereon,
which he refuses 70 psy over. Defendant applied Tor
bis dschsrge the ground OF the original 9th VT
not being sufficient 10 warrant the order hl5 Hpaor
this morning denied the motion in the following
opinion: ,.u.s i.A .. r,uor
particuafity and in precise order as deem dssT-
able yet think now, as first thought tnat ehoug1
il shown in the affidavit TO enable me 10 INFER deIlD
crate design on the part Of the defendant TO deraud
the plaintiff, from the beginning. His manner and
CONDUCT at the time Of obtaining the first loan, stated
in the plsIt' affidavit taken IN connection WITH ms
subfequeLt conduct and particularly tue noniulhlmenI
of his promise shows that design. Not that the
breach Of pr, mise Of sef ecessary ls indicative Oh
fraud or coad alone lay the foundation for an order OF
arrest: but following indications OF dishonest pur-
rose in contracting the debt, this preach Oh pom
strongly corroboretes my belief that toe deiendaal
never intended TO deliver the stock, anu thsl MS rep
refentstions respecting 1t were iAse
But, il is commended, even supposing tue d'ieuuan.
did not &C: fairly with regard to the tr't loan thN
the plaintiff waived his otectiOp AID his rshs 10 Tue
stock as security, by entering INTO new aotca
oap-the loan for $50. The answer toths, ho"eyer,
IL that on this second occasion the same lndc itohs
OF fraudulent intent are mani es.ed oy hs cOhaucs
al the time, and by tis subsequent failure 10 perol
his promise 10 transfer the stock and IT. under SAGA
oircumsaI ces the psintif waived any OF nus rights,
be is not bound by the waiser, fJr rau' Vlutlss
everything. can scarcely admit that the deienoahts
second fraud can have the effect OF eAoiefatlng hh
from the consequences oil the hfst' i"' "'onse c@n
never mske q right.
After failing to deliver the stock, Wnch tue de'sL'-
ant promised TO give security for the first losn he
made various addi ional representations TO the paint
amope others that ne was man considerable prop
erty and perfectly responsible Tor the anoaO sud that
the stock was much more valuable than II really wa;
in Consequence of these representations the second
loan was made. and the same result iolowed-an en-
the failure 10 give secuIIy or 10 pay me money -
n efefore | am TO believe the plaintiff, must con-
clude that the defendant has asty exposed himself 70
the iuputGtion Of fraudulent intent IN this danss)
ton. Il shows that Throughout the who's ra1'a'uoi
b)rroseT.
Motor del.ea WITH go cos0.