New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-10-23


John p. ksns sgt. Jeremiah yanire'le.-Triei b
th. CosT, Judsmeui Tor pili-ud fr sIg T.
Philip Nusbaum act. Augustus .Johnson.-Tried b.
Gle CoJIt. Judgu-l z Iaaiia la h -e,gr r..e,.ou
detention by aefelGaa..
Alex Dcrristoun agt. Austin f. Tbsyer It'd by
tie Corr Judgment ior plaintiff ~ : \ ~ s.
Thomas J. Easterbrook ard others .yac,,o-. not
az a'ol-Iiiel By iA' Oo"H Judgment f0I p'si.tG, io'
II CuAusrRs-Drolsiovs
Jhn ". Font AZ. George h lock and John Kevo..
Defendants motion 70 set aside Judgment granted
Cos's of COS. molten Sc BE- recovered Is ne
parry tbs ac.oa. Defendants lave day, whicA . an
John W Fo-' ana Leaf. W Foa: ss. Go Kes.k Al Io
Ire sane order as IN the above case.
Before Judge lScRAsAM
- Charles II. Frost 1s.. Gilmore ana othe-
his motion must be denied-Frs': Because Bern.
zen - - a. i;' u ile properly mo'sased to eat;is N 10
Second Because Hoon who Claim. BE- ,he % the
N ofe rop s o-.ea.o He sSd. re .sns po s
icr as fillmore di vAle he saa mss pay the
fi,f. Becsu.e ths Corr. should lot interfere between M
81, ae sse o action 70 give 10 either az ad
'aa,see over ne e.hcr n p'oseertns their Gains
b-. onv u an actu brought prpose which al
49, wn Ii e., a. Cha. II. Mccsiorsb ct a.
The order 10 stay proceedings in the order Of August
So wa. 10 stay rToceodilSs until the settled 4
pea. . ave c1 entered differently ia the order Angus, q
The time r 'e''in re ge has been eyed 81 twenty es;
from roce Judgment ard by the order Of Jadse Sutherland
thst zine was extended twelty days.
Ths Of tcreis with the orie prior to the set,
Afs to- a-c settled the s.,y praeein IS vacated
ss The defendant tiles "A Sua-rasus o. toe aPea III TIE sun
Before Judr, F. DAEvIv sxrra.
FALSE RFPREsENTATIoNs-rHE Law REQUIRES MES
To SPrAk IHE TRrru.
Thlnos NLcou5 aud others AIT Thomas sa.sman AID
Cyrus D. Booth.
ii the plaintiffs are 20 he believed in the affidavit
maze D. them lie deada-t sasn,n obtained the delivery Of
hc for rh s sou bTo ght hy false Fepresc
tol regard person partner Booth s. There
l
place o. e time Of Pie sse ,he goods ne haauce ai weight
csery u favor Of the plaintiff. in TIE proportion
81 nrse - one The tu, say M t.i ail IT, mat ore or
Ul,.ia re icsacyai and arrested
conai some difficulty connected win enay % beIa.g
he sail goods The faith the Representation that the partner
of The sad isnt sa,ruau - h editor and Wa a. he
plaintiffs affirm the salsmsn said The rsry nan who
or and had such difficulty Ssmsn does not oeny
s he made :gea 10, ~, ne h, 1'af Fl. p,s sa
had formerly been such eii;r; hat hs n vas III sood credit
tn, To- .he goods purhssei The time Of he purchase Bu,
thi. n n he In tact Obtained Ae credit Tor the
the false will nor DO for him TO say that he did
moan 70 defraud he p'n'h, AZ the time They were IN ct
dciraHisd They gave e dr. 70 false aicm nt aud the u
jury to them tue As II the purpose OF oi.smaa
s. iraudu'e, a. 'he time. ever
purchaser who obtains credit By talss~
be held 20 ni''t the 'Snmhie coH' oe b w., , ' ~
requires men 80 >peas i a. A. a't t a., "a
Tlc Su of gaod mora aIih law II the aad
arrest hould b. d, lied with $40 costs
MOTION TO DISCHARGE ORDER oF ARREST.
Henry q scuddel AT. James 4. Barnes.
From the statement of the referee Accompanying the
evidence reformed by him. vi think ly Narrsned by
tic evidence mink fully established Ia, the defendant made
both me verbal ana written IN regard 60 mis- cir
cimanes claimed by ne pAAth Tn verbal atoms
tanned noths being due The painh Tor the goods purchased
upon the faith a tie written own perfectly
good aud l,be for oil The rlay purchase in
Jerey City. the hoase ald lots IN which am living which
value a. between five at Xxx thousand and consider this good
and s. cieu TOR ay goods may buy. also real estate
in WlIiauostr - ato lave other property
THE arestou p-o,surd whether hi. Representation
'ae aud Known 70 be a 0 zoe a, tee time re
iisl Of tac pauf arc. LIN depe.d' upon tue establish
ment Of tAe allegation ia ;he 9nuase Of section 70 'lbvi:
ing the debt mourning the Obligation or which the acons
Tie representation that the defendant was perfectly good
and responsible m al goods he nigh. purchase IN Pc tiAen
IN connection wth TIE whole saeeI, Iaa he IA. S ~,
The Defendant shor, after these representation, che
las, written o, being made c III February 1887
made general assignment OF ell is property, in which be
cry tie CO., owing The same time, debts,
apr.a BY schedule also annexed 20 sail assignment t. the
eno 70 - t2< ~ Tue ~ srnet da'ei tho iotn Gay OF
Mar'h use. O1y9r'y change IN Ls aI,unsances bad
en- pare Of the making Of verbal aud
H. wn sha.on Tor ines are s.D.1s. ay "eut.cs'
This exhibit 1fLc actual colti" and amount n The defend
sr properly aud debts implies upon sfe a Tie Ioprrsent
HE p-cai lar, ability were clearly false II he wss vosh
worth u,c tlau 67 on the in Of March The Inference Of
IRE m BIS ogrl ielrese tain n, AID ts'ehco 3D. IS Irresistible
i.'.le.s eiae H.. t.ss- '@prs.eua
tor could possibly have been u To my miod he entirely
fails DO &c. he ho~s that s his property cod snd DIS
pcred teAept ta assigned before hc mA ng - the assign
uen. A. be- gives account the pr ceds Of such sales in
H. asg uer aud seh.uue ANNEXED thereto contain,
of ary sofs derived r. thar sourc t must be in.
H,d h;k, ha ph'eytr I'M rest Ee had il such property
absorbed by pl,eNistlg debt Iod d. sch proceeds
tu,d 'hc cfhe dciutan apparent property tue learned
relere say, his 'piuon Tia, if he really owed Hannah
uh 10 whom same Va, conveyed Oh me q 81 March,
1850 @fO0on the ~ Of December 1857 he maaestly
perfectly good and repnhe for ali The good, Ia might
prtsse srd his 'ans 90 iha cite were false and
The written prcsua;on Of 'ne loth February were - ay
p he referee then ADJ. Nv Impressions from the evidence
are that ~ dsut did not Hannah saith" Ia another
par Of biz report the referee u stating the facts in {esnd 70
Til. sale Huuah Smith Hannah Smith paid him
money hen she took tie deed. TIE defendants account Of IL
hr 'ctor and that the made u
her in fsymert 0ffist indebtedness"
The referee Kim the defendant mistaken IN this testimony
tia. h. n 90. Hannah Smith The effect the referees
finding this point that the deiendan. has worl falsely m
In tis n ding tuk te referee mistaken The defendant
s- be- been guilty II ile swearing IN statements o he
manner we confederation upon witch h. disposed Of hs
could ald be- shows under oath that
wac false. think be should be- held % speak the truth
urer oath this TALLY establishes his original fraud IN
couactug the debt II may be that the referee right a1d
hs fraud Of the defe ian committed IN dsP9' ns OF
biz prop ~ rather than in contra ta me deo, 20 ne
Butt, illogical and unjust 20 the deiencalt 50 20 o u
more indugeL him hold that he cont acted the drDt
eudu.nty than that be audu'Dty disposed OF his property
avoid payment aud sought to cover over The trausa on
tbs the defendant entirely fail, to show that hi. repre'en
tatol AZ the time, aud that the debt "as not
audur'y contracted snd the referee u mistaken n ms con-
.ior this part and his TePo hosd be si.aaef a9S
I'll costs. Motion denied with +O costs
SUPREME COURT-CiRcurT-0cT. 2-Before Judge
CLERXE.
joseph Field, ag Felicia SestyAl aud Henry Ve'tyah
lf.4T afsT.- fY u-e0