The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-01-14
United States Circuit Court.
Before Judge Ingers0ll.

IMPORTANT MERCANTILE sUIT-NEw YORK MER-
CHANTS SUE PHILADELPHIA HOUSE FOR THE
VALUE OF STOLEN GOODS SOLD BY AUCTION.
JAN. 13-Henry T. Dibblee d al Us. James f. Furnis ct
olThis case which has been for the last three days.
exctes much interest among all mercantile classes from
the nature of the questions Of law involved and the
sponsbiy of auctoneers The suit is brought by the
plaintiffs, who importing and obbing merchants in
this city, of good standing against the defendants who
are respectable auctoneers Of Philadelphia the
value Of certain silks, &C. Our readers may recollect
that something year ago one George Parmelee,
who occupied the store in the story above the plant,
at No. 25 Murray street. was arrested charged with hav
ing taken silks from the plaintiffs store into which he
had obtained entry through the skylght Parmelee
indicted but has been tried The plaintiffs now
bring this action Of rover against the defendants for their
Silks sent to them for sale by Parmeee under the name Of
Syvanus Oushout amounting TO about $17 000 The suit
commenced In the Supreme Court Of the State, and
thence removed 10 this Court by the defendants. They
claim that the goods them the usual
of business and nothing TO put them upon suspicion and
that ns are not o saS ahe aso Se
ants the property Of plaintiffs that the latter could
only the actual net proceeds Of the sales in Pha
depha and not the cost price of the goods claimed by
plaintiffs In the Of the trial Parmeee himself
placed the stand witness for the plaintiffs, and gave
$40 600 and extending over period Of nearly three years
He described the of his operations in taking the
goods TO the defendants and others and on being asked
by Mr. OConor what led him into the matter he replied
that he supposed the ways Of crime were generally
simlar-that the need Of money for his business,
the opportunity occasoned by the breaking Of glass in the
skyeht and feeling Of anger occasioned by III treat
ment received from the plaintiffs, had led him 10 take the
goods.
and Mr. Evarts for the plaintiffs, summed up; after which
Judge Ingersoll charged the jury at length He said
parties Immediately concerned but the public generally
the jury would have to give their patient attention
Although unlike other in points Of dre-
yet ii must be governed by the same rules Of law
and Of evidence other cases and be passed upon with
respect to questions to the credby of the witnesses
the same as any other case The action was IN rover 70
the value Of goods and merchandise alleged TO
have been stolen and converted money If the plain
ts were entitled 70 recover they were entitled to the
conroveted the claims Of the plaintiffs two grounds
first, that 1t was not proven that the goods were
that Il r. the 'fd goods were the property Of the plain,
tins at the time Of their sale by the defendants or
when they converted the goods TO their tho law
which should govern the jury in determining this question
this "f the goods were owned by the plaintiffs, and
while so owned were stolen by the witness Parmeee and
sent TO the defendants and they sold these goods then
the fact proven would entte the plaintiffs TO recover
the value thereof at the time such goods sold by
them. No matter how honest the defendants may have
been the transaction the law is-hard the may
behe plaintiffs must recover but OF the facts the jury
must be the sole judges The question was which OF the
parties suffer from the dishonesty Of Parmclee
The law Is that the defendants must suffer for such
frauds or wrongs II the plaintiffs can satisfy the
jury that the goods stolen by Parmelee, and
were the same goods the defendants sold and
accounted to that person for There doubt but
tnat tne goods came rom New YORK, and that the
invoices in the handwriting and signed
by Parmelee, under the egned Of "0usthout The
fact that the goods sent by Parmeee not sul
Gent and was for the jury TO say what credit they
would give TO Parmeees testimony and that beyond all
reasonable doubt The question was, what faith
they could place in the evidence Of Parmecep He has
been convicted OF no crime, and therefore compe
tent Witness but that not sufficient he should be
something more than competent witness-he should be
credabc one; and II for the Jury say no wa
SUCH Hopes had been held out 70 Parmelee Of utat,
escape, and is said that he has made different state
ments out of doors to what he has made this Court
When the goods sent 10 the defendants there was
virtual representation them that he had right 10 sell
them but II the Jury should believe the goods were stolen
hen however dishonest the transaction, the plaintiff,
should recover and defendants be held the
actual value Of the goods at the time they stolen II
they should render verdict for the plaintiffs they must
for the value of the goods at the time Of the sae
with interest thereon. The Judge then reviewed the est
mony at length.
| The jury retired, and after few moments absence
Judge Ingerso recalled them and informed them that II in
their Judgment Parmeee not credtabe Witness
supported by Others prove that the goods were soen
and the property Of tho plaintiffs then they must
find verdict for the defendants.
After the lapse Of hour the Judge ordered the jury TO
bring In a sealed verdict.
The Court adjourned 10 this morning.
Political Intelligence.