The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-06-16
Examination OF Henry Dwight on Charges
Of Perjury, Embsxzicment and Fraud.
DECISION OF JUDGE RUSSELL.

ohyI nOfninb.
Examination OF Henry Dwight on Charges
Of Perjury, Embs zziement and Fraud.
DECISION OF JUDGE RUSSELL.
FURTHER TESTIMONY PUT IN, AND
FINAL.
In the Henry Dwight charged with perjury In
answer served In the Of Brown, Brothers Company
against Henry Dwight and wife, City Judge Russell deliv
cred decson Monday, holding Mr. Dwight to bail in the
Of 500 TO the charge but suosequeny
further testimony being offered for the Defence the Judge
announced that this decision should not be considered
hral, he would examine the new testimony and give
another opinion thereon should be found to affect the
previous Mr.. Dwight therefore, not required
give bonds, but still remains under temporary commit.
ment until the final decision in the case The folio wing
Judge Russell's opinion
menced In the summer OF 1856 by the firm OF Brown,
Brothers Co., against Henry Dwight Jr, and Others
given by said Dwight upon certain real Duchess
county. The complaint described the Indebtedness and
ana ss or r ire oSd sna
gage had been given. The complaint was served upon
said Dwight the accused defendant at the time he had
been surrender ed to the debtor jail by one of the plain
tis. After delays the accused swore TO answer
to the complaint, and copy OF II was duly
served. This answer alleged, among other defences,
that the Aforesaid mortgage mad been given as collateral
security ID assignment OF q railroad lease, upon
which assignment the plaintiffs bad advanced one hun
red TO this lease executed for term OF twenty
years by the Chicago Alton and st. Louis Railroad 70
assigned the sane to the plaintiffs The then
aveTred that the plaintiffs had induced M Spencer to
become .ne nominal lessee 10 ssd ease eod we're mem
in Italics 4, complained OF IS constituting the perjury
These two avermeDts will be found in the following
sec,ion CT the answer, surrounded with some imputa
tons Ct motive that perhaps not matters Of
legal hsue, and accompanied by some summing
Tg 81 S J. ssG
ants further answering sad complaint charge upon nfor
nation and belief thai for long time past the said firm
OF Brown Brothers Co. entertained desire to possess
themselves OF the CONTROL management earnings and
profits OF The Chcsgo Alton and ST. Louis Railroad for
the purpose they alleged, Of paying themselves deus
which they Gained as being due TO Them frc certain
parties neced with ssd road and thu. early In the
summer Of 1855 they induced M Han Spencer, OF I'LL
nos become the ncmiI leseeo OF said read for the
said space OF twenty Inst to this end the said
PLAINTIFF offered to funs money and pay up all arrears
furnish and advaDce The large ;um Of $4,000
TO that cad, viz ;-Possesspg themselves OF said
the slst day of August then next ensuing the
said read nomiDAlly leased to Mr.. Spencer put in
reality TO the ptintns who had already dram up the
executed 10 them the day after the said com
paDy executed the lease to him; that this i'd
Of the defer dsni and the other mentioned 10 the
complaint fer iron rails furnished 70 the read aud
all Of sbch wei, 70 enhance the value o. Inc rosi 50
Aforesaid" The lease Of Mr. Spencer here spsken Of and
which In evidence contains among his covenants one
In these worts He will ADVANCE for The said party OF
FRA. part he railroad corpora.iop) the
tures, and when they presented for payment all the
interest en- income bonds OF the party OF the nrst
part falling due on the first OF September 1855" Mr.
Spencer not having the money the nrm OF Blown Bro
theirs Co were applied 10 10 furnish IL Il quote now
Mr. Stuart Browns testimony Some time previous 10
that da.e Mr. Dwight, should think within fortnight
previously called and saw me at my oce, and suggested
that N my firm would make further advances 10 the Chi
o,go Alton and 81 Louis Railroad he would
debt by giving tous lease upon the roaihe OBJECT or
our advance beng to put the company 10 fands Z, pay
pops we're TO held as fecury This was tho frat init
nation or my firm hal had Of lease being thought
or In regard TO biz proposition peremptory declined
mskr any advances taking lesse Mr. Dwight then
proposed giving additional security 10 mortgage OF his
country seat 2. oa 'p S D woa nn Ss arm *
Brown Brothers Co furnished the advances, and said
sfencer his part morgaged his lease and said Dwight
on hts part mortgsged his Barryio~n propcrty-,he
members OF ssd firm being mortgages each security
The action in which the answer YVES pleaded was an equi
Horaras Pr 43t,) Mr. Justice Cerke says''Ii there
any action mere than another pre- ennently the
subject Of jealous supervision by courts OF equity Ia the
action for foreclosure VI Mortgages where mortgages
have taken advantage IN any way OF morigagors, or
where thtre las been mistake injurious TO the
70 have spprised them court Of equity 90 far from lend
ing iis assistance 70 the wrong will Interfere
10 repair - In reviewing under this expression OF the
Law the question OF materially ably argued before me
impossible perceive thai In The suit sgaost the
accused much latitude Of maeriay "a - be allowed "a
Az \
Material this rs 81 cient governed by strc
rules Of legal Interpretation distinguished from those Of
an n1rs ohs ss sv sy .sy,u sD
sepen 70 be made By spencer bat II the
real esees Brown Brothers % thus advanced
OF their own lease primary security, and took mort
ease from he accused ,ndary security, then they
were mskios sham advance and taxing security from
Brothers Co but making advances on Consideration
OF security which they had bound the nseves to make a
any rate under mutuAllty Of covenant II the answer
IL True sstrs that Brown, Brothers and % had induces
Mr. Spencer 10 enter into such an arrangement they had
taken from me accused security ,or aeo' wnS1 mo nO
stsntsIy alleged In the matter charged AZ perjury
Judge Cerbe observations before quoted and must b
foreclosure s1james vs. Marcy, CovAns, X, 2s5
Suppose in action Al Lag upon Dsights bond
sSsn b ssou Sodsrs ~. Bond s@ be-
cone the principal debtors, would mot such defence b
msteriaf Were the allegations complained OF false' !
Mr. Browns OF the transaction 10 true, all the nj
legations the entertaining desire 70 possess the
road, 10 be untrue Only one member OF the firm
,..iv. ono vs,nsss NAV nroye f,sty
(wcodbeck va Kellar, CoEan's Reports, lis rne as
Segment turns out 70 be mortgage OF Interest 10 the
lease. The circumstances tend 70 show that Nc
Dwight knew Of the preliminary discussions ao,ul
tie overwhelmingly OF Batchfori)-was present
s,sas csy 'S$ s sss v' va. D' active s
other respects after executed Testimony OF Potter
All the circumstance seem 70 corroborate M Browns
statement denying the allegations. The admissions Of
Dwight 70 sesbury Brewster respeong the difficulty met
with in obtaining sdvsnces from Bro IN, Brothers Co.,
alec corroborste MI Browns ststementsand these I'd
missions Of The accused inconsistent with the alesa
lions In the Such admissions connected with posi-
tive denial amount TO two oahs ~ denial (Ss,e Ma
her, Den 263 Was theperjury-ifthe matter ss ma
terial and fala-wilfu IN It's chuscier The ascused
would seem 10 have 70 something peculiarly within
lis own knowledge ! have given this pJnt all the
weight which I could legally or properly award
N the declarations OF innocent intention by the
accused, and 10 his alleged inadvertency Of
attention 1T the time the aEswer Was hrsi
svorn 10. have duly considered bis relations WITH and
the peculiar state Of mind Of, his attorney But no ons
and the advances better than he did, aud even With tbe
expabsors In the The PROBABLE csrso for TIE Sfu
n slrsng. Was the oath cJfrupty isketg II IA
10 that the alleged perjury was material
snd viifu then direct pecunsry bshed would result
70 the accused In sustaining hs spswsr sad would NOT