New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-10-10
Id W LNIELLIGENCK
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT coURr-ocr. r-Bsso'o

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COuRr-Ocr. T-Besote
Jusice NELsoN.
ALLEGED FRAUD rros THx KHvEsuE DEPARTMENT
NOTION To REDUCE TEE AMOUNT OF BAIL OF
$4,000.
Tie UriteS States AFT J. X Herriek.
MIR. Blunt, IN behalf OF the motion. said that thus
rrr.er,es sims- % s. person e.sns in ..aorsry
Sssn ~. o 81 a. srs u lot 1 .as
upon The eefe-dsnts whdAzs sstoer. In 1881 Dc
y. Placed a tte brad Of toe house. tie deieecsn
Anne. eontru-d q n. bead % lat sm for three se.. wen
firm formed for three y-sn longer defendant still
cor,irri5g svecis pA-trer.
UpOO face OF bis AFFIDAVIT APPEAR, ,h. this nfcrner
bis former employer who has brought and psed
him 81 the head Of h eoSs- wa inSud anime The iuvus
whether surir1 1884, when The defndsa, his he had
paid all the dues scSuni Of the hr that be hsd charged
This nsotv. to such sborous Investigation hardly seems
adequate the defncsrts affidavit fn,shes expsnaon
thai hmes bad defrsuded special p.ner large sums for
which suits sroUsht and fading thu; no proper def.n.
Anes and his the Rhosfs Of LoOdoO BY
ss " hun, up b sss hs ss Of as @
ferosn, and to break DOWN rival house.
sss. ALLEGED Ard Il Is upon the sisvil tots Alone
ohsricE rsnSs terms indicating envenomed c eeog
The charges CEREAL vague that n pn on the
face of the Affidavit tbs; Mr. Aes could possibly tnow VIA,
thirteen years he details Of large business
able him to s~ea,o such statements; and when his pOo
his relations defendant and bic motives considered,
iudiciAlly De 10 et titled bu; little credit
10
the trial gill b shl. to establish his defense.
He vnins hO~ever to give BAT, AM to any Ancant tina,
responsibility upon sweeping general
mens nsse BY 90 M rmer who ooues before the Court under
Anea
Blunt He said that tbe defendants .hdsvs made specific
denial In Mr. Amess affidavit but merely said
that the charges unsounded h,, Government had
nothrg DO relations between the nformer and
defendant with the motives which prom oted him b ios
gate poceednes be satisfied that the bail
ought be reduced he submitted the matter upon the All
Mr. Blur, said tina. the relations Be.
the ought not to become matter OF Judicial consd
A. between husband and wife the law no, allow either
testify sssns each ohr and although to holding .s
n',ns'r 800 - ~. ~ -, ..s,n,. 49,.
eerpd BY persons who have held relsons the sccused Of
TIE here even II undenied sre sxssger,ted and
the bail be thoosht should be reduced
amount Of duties TO would exceed coo and
he therefore reduced the bail to 5000 with two sure
Der s. Before Justice NELSON
DAMAGE TO CARGO or WHEAT By kERosENE
Nelson o. Nstteton al at. The ship Fanny Fosdick.
Tee libel was filed against the ship TO recover dam
for The injury to quantity Of wheat shipped from Me-
els, pu, hoard the y-. in December 1887 and arrived
jan TO- following The Fanny Fosdek ssGers ship,
the wStat-ac5r, .6s.r mo...t. bIde, c Sc When the
wheat DISCHARGED this Is csmed that Il emitted
coal ~ SsS 80 barrels Sd. had been
hold OF he ship Two hundred bags Of The wheat had been
Of hoeshesds Of mossses The whes however not
within ~ feet of the oil The Of the wheat slowed be-
decks The well slowed and properly cued for
during pn the the oil Ia the OF
the wheat affords ev iepce OF bsd and unt aid
of due and caution In the transportation The whes
when Discharged In all other except the offensive odor
condition. This smell the Witnesses state, reduced
its value twenty-five cents blshe Tue case upon
the lar There considerable conflict ot evidence
upon the questions W whether there any stencil
ohsnsive emitted from the whest when devered ~
whether exposing it to toe air short tune with proper
ventilation, would have It aud (S is claimed TO
ssceaued from actual shipments with assorted ,ar
coal oil would tbe effect sought To De
tsblshed this The solution doubtless OF this ntrsrety
be found In the fact that the article of
coal oil partially commodity In the trade, and Its eff
upo stored In the hold o the vessel not
yet w.l understood For this not prepared 10 say
custom In respect with other would
.mpt the carrier within the principle Of the Of Baxter as
Leland Batch $751; But there Is another ground resting
the which think the libel
piopery dsed by the Count below The wheat deiv
ship In the sacks In lighters and discharged
them into the lighters In bulk nsins the portion slowed
the i'd which In the vicinity Of the OIL with tbs portion
decks The consignee responsible for this
blenars the parcels not At all satisfied the
portion slowed bet~een decks affected
1 by the dssreesble flavor Of the oil, II II had
been otherwise IN the portion slowed In the hold And
respects the 30 bs In the hold In the conflict Of the testimony
disposed 10 interfere with the decree. Indeed
Jog ard veuat the wheat the offensive odor would dis
appeared and the damages slight any Asmpe wa brought
TITO the Court below, which, the Judge states 10 bis opinion
CLEARLY failed 10 show that retained any dscernsbs effects Of
1 the faint
The decree Of the Cour. diminishing the libel affirmed.