New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-16
nFNE COURT-CHAsrsEs-AfRIL 15.-Before Judge


il STHCSc
roTI.- ~ rAsATE ORDER oF ARREST.
a Hoscs b. Clshin And olStrs AT. Moses Franz .,
~ ofier for The arrest OF defendant was granted
sss,. ,etDg forth hat obout the Oth Of February
- b, ss'.ncsrt tpPeo - The paoths In this city % sell
sl, and 70 Induce the plaintiff, do 90 made csrsin
ssns IN regard to his pecn.s'y soqmstancss oy which
eI, sg itf1enced 10 eel 10 the defendant Of es
within e days e,ter good, 70 the amount n
sis hst the stem nts ase sgd fraudulent end the
sppsss BY the sdsvs for tbs mott )D thtt the de-
1T eh the cry on the q Of February l8Sq ior New
"a soi absent Until the 10Th % March aud that the
us,s purchased during his absence BY the defendants
"a the dsisnoAl . account - ,
v 1889 the wife Buo Of the def ndant called Of the
h store and purGha'ed bill OF goods 10 behalf Of the
~ shch The w' paid for on tie OH aud l7h Of Febru'
age1ner On the occasion Of that purchase, some In
msde Of the as 20 the property OF tue desnd-
uihe denies nsvi made sucn statements IS are
~ Lsse been made b tie defendant IN the Ai'AVs Tor
- 80 the sdsvs obsiu the order, 10 substance
Va 1eITste tstons made by the defendants at
are svsD Of the mis- axes in the former sis svt 10 Wit,
peToos did not know the defendant snd under
~ tie dsvs carefully II ia further set forth 10 one OF the
s1is IN reply thst shorlv after the 18th Of Jspu-
ns wussSw the defe the store Of the latter,
a va him 1t the julie in the plsetiis store to re }lte
& means and then 10 CURED Of him 10 regard q his esppn.
@ when ths dfenoa referred Il what bis son had ssid a.
sf 70 similar refressn'soDs the subject; Those
s ,tst that the subsrqlent purchases we're mad. IN
natina.ion Of them by the oeisn liant
m RA,ad by the the IOtn Of January Il It were
- ne fraudulent aud the god. purchase thereafter were
e. sso on faith Of IT, Tbshed no ground for toe orcer In
Dc unless the statements authorized or subse1uen,y
.-r,d by the dsl.ndsLt TIE dtiendant would be cyily
the fraud Of hs but would not Dc subject % ar
~ reason Of t must Nc personal sui OF party TO
ruspsot 20 fraud contracting H. 20 make hin liable In
ALTON fOT he debt aest, within the tPt oil Sec lv
"a Of the Code. a., n,
f arrest must depend for support the s-
the Aforesaid conversation with the defendant The
ndsu sye, toe Plaintiff nor any one on to
III ever questioned h TO bis circumstance, ana t1s. ne
umads tny representations the s1bect The pa ntlhs
10 tho Conversation coroborited BY an affidavit that
A that time the osmed to have had such CONVEX
- with the cefeUoaut. s,,-,..s -.
zar,pt an ses Of dsfendsnt. whose fraud IL aleea =,
.,ou cf ,ne order, ths must be clearly poNea
- 4 serious doub Tue tssuo an oToer Oh arrest n"
low able. 80, Alt. .. 90 .b. con,
s.tio with the a. his sore alter the iun OF Jau1
~ h ia paired b7 the Circumstance oil ina witness
that the goods were sold on tle etn OF
% 70 by the defeudalt al tue pauths store
mon nov ctn5eded be ana by hi, own sdm
ION Of hayins sworn bis former affidavit without uaVas
al A care u " When the made by the oena an
a fully dpfoyed this conversation gsS hrsi resored % 10
The oroer There Is much In this t. excite suspicion
I'd think tie aaAvit vita tue cTcu relied on M
ocborsop At least bssuced by the denial referred 70 OF
h. defendant.
ny oTnon Therefore the order OF arrest should be va
.od ana II 10 ordered accordingly with SlO costs