Monmouth weekly herald. [volume] (Freehold, N.J.) 1854-1860, 1858-06-03
The Steenbergen Case.

~ 4lCautlCknOut MISS DdfdI Ii.
hendrickson, Mrs. Ruth A. H., daughter Of,
and John P. cambridge, son-in-law Of Mrs.
a., with obtaining real and personal estate,
and money, by false pretences, commenced on.
Monday last before Justice VIM. D. Oliphant.
The Counsel for the State, A. C. Mclean.
Esq, requested that the examination might
be conducted privately, SO far as possible, adj
hitting only the parties concerned, and mem-
bers OF the press. The Justice decided that.
after the examination Of Mr.. Bainbridge, the
further proceedings should be conducted as
requested. Jos. D. Beedle, Esq, appeared
Tor defendant. Acting by advice by Counsel,
defendant declined making any statement, and
the examination proceeded by calling Mr..
cambridge to the stand.
his testimony, together with the discussion
Of legal points by counsel, occupied the entire
day. We give merely a summary of the evil
dence, suppressing much relative to the preyi-
GUS private character of the witness and de-
tendant, as, notwithstanding it might throw
some additional light upon the transaction,
would at the same time reflect upon innocent
parties. The ladies during the examination
occupied an adjoining apartment, connected
with the justices Office by an open door.
Mr.. cambridge deposed, in substance, as
follows:
On the goth day of April last there was an agree
ment entered into between Mrs. Elizabeth Hen
Erickson, Miss Sarah H. Hendrickson, Mrs Ruth A.
IL. cambridge, and the dsponent, on the one part,
and John Il. Stsenbergen, the defendant, on the
other part, for the sale to defendant Of certain real
estate and personal property belonging to Mrs. Hen
Erickson and her family that defendant represented
that he had an annual income from the Government
of the United States. of 81 200, payable monthly an
income from Bonds of the State of Virginia of ST.
500 per year, and also an income from his family
and that the firm of Rowland g. Aspinwall, of New
York, would advance for him. at any time, from
$l0o,000 to $500,000; and that believing these rep
reservations to be true, they agreed to sell him the
property. The purchase money was to remain on
bond and mortgage, on the property, and the time
of payment of the interest was made to suit defen-
dant, IN July and January, as he represented on
the first of those months he received the interest on
his Virginia bonds. A part of the in%ducement to
sell on the terms of agreement was, that defendant
vast to make considerable improvements on the prop
erty-$l,500 in improvements were to be put. on
the first month-all of which were to be paid for in
cash, and the bills and receipts thereon were to be
passed into the hands of Mrs. Hendrickson. The
defendant took possession of the property on or
about the Sd day of April last, and held it until the
sh of May, and during that time made no perma-
1 nank 49,
borrowed $140i in money of Miss Sarah Hendrickson,
promising to pay it on the first of May. at which
time he said he would receive his monthly income
from the U. S. Government this money he subse-
quently refused to pay, and denied that he had any
income from the Government: he also denied having
any Virginia bonds, or any credit at Rowland & AS
Pinwalfs and moreover, said that he never intended
to pay one dollar, and that he would put a person on
the property who would cheat the family more than
he could. His department was also changed from
mild and atiable to tyrannical andidisgraceful. He
exercised No care over the property, but seemed to
delight in destroying everything he could, even to
the furniture in the house, and actually threatened
to pull the house down, and let it remain down.
His conduct about the house was disgraceful and
Notifying to the family. in the extreme.
On being cross-examined by the defence, deponent
SeNeout ehak hO uCCdhio acquainted WIN QeIenQa0b
about the first of March last. Previous to that he
met at the Railroad depot a person named Della Ash,
who lived with defendant. He had known Miss Ash |
several years before, she having been a dress maker
for Opponents wife, when he lived in New York
He spoke to her about selling the property, and re-
quested her to speak to defendant about buyinp it.
Defendant was boarding at Carson & Conoyer's no.
tel, and deponent met him in the bar-room; defend
ent introduced himself, and they went together to
defendants room, where Miss Ash formally intro
dueed them. Deponent could not recollect what
transpired at this interview, or the subject of con-
v%ersatlon. He remained about half an hour. and
defendent was to come in the afternoon and look at
the property. After this, an intimacy existed be-
tween deponent and defendant; they visited each
other frequently.
The price Of the property was stated, but deponent
could not recollect that defendant, at any time. de-
clined to purchase he had an impression that de-
PENDANT said he packed up to go away. After the
middle of March defendant went to Easton and to
Philadelphia. In the meantime deponent went to
New York en- business for defendant. Part of this
business was to see Mr.. Comstock, of the firm of
Rowland & Aspinwall, and part of it was to pro-
cure a housekeeper for defendant. He took a letter
frem defendant to a Mrs. Fanny Bogart, in response
to which Mrs Bogart met deponent and defendant Mt
Trenton, and proceeded with them to PHILADELPHIA.
where deponent left them and returned home. The
letter to Mrs. Bogart was written from knowledge
of her, derived from deponent, who also exhibited
to defendant a daguerreotype likeness of her, and
recommended her to defendant as a housekeeper.
but could not recollect that he said anything about
the purchase of the property in this connection, al
though he might have done SO. At the tine the
contract was made for the sale of the property, it
was understood thatSdeponent and his wife were to
remain with defendant, on certain conditions d.
ponent was to be engaged to conduct business for
defendant, and while ~actingin this capacity had sent
for liquor for defendant, while he was in posssssion |
OF and residing on the premises and continued to
act as his agent in the transaction of business, up to
the time the property was re-transferred. and for
these services received something more than his
board. The contract was drawn up by Mr.. Me-
Lean, who advised them not to negotiate with de-
fendant on his own personal responsibility thew
were also so advised by another person. a friend If
the family The personal property was estimated
at $4,000; and the real estate on South street at
$4,000; defendant took possession the day after
the contract was executed, and disagreement he
tween him and the family commenced on the dav he
took possession. Shortly after this thew discovered
that defendant was p~ennyless, and unable to fulfil
his contract.
The examination of this witness was concluded
about 6 o'clock in the afternoon, and the case was
then postponed until Friday next, when other wit