, 1863-05-30

The case Of Wood d. Dunno, Vs. Goss, jack
man tS Co., has recently been cited aud dis.
cusecd before both t,,e C5rcn;t aci, tn. gnneri.
-. con,+a H. az, 49, 49,, .sr ar.,,.
~ 49, s.Ae .!t5' a'.lai tepo'to % .ue
case arc elSenln2l I'LL H., 6o' andAl ILL., L.. o:o.
but the most interesting part OF the case has |
mt httbcr+o ,,oar r.nor3oa
n,,, -.s,. - <s-. s".z, ,es.
!ne VIII u error "as 1sssueo IN eu1s 1o'o.
but the appearance Of the defendants was not |
tbc,r annrar,ncc The defenaants pleaded q re-
toa~a - a... ~, w. o-o ~ t,,o ,,1o,,,;Ha
.eaee ~ el[ole W Hoou' ons y. 'Ae
The other plaintiff, Dunno, tled q motion to |
strike this plea from the files for fa1sity, and
to reverse the Judgment for the errors as:
signed, and supported MS 1ao.1on " IN an1da'
Wit that several thousands OF dollars were In
fact due frcm the defendants to the plaiutiifs.
and ,b,, as between him and b;s co.n,rtnar
~" -.. -. 49,. o,.t.1a,4. -,
mooo' ne !u "as en,ll'sa ~ AZ, OF nearls all Of
the money; that the release which purportcd
to have been eiyen for consideration of f;ftv
aol(nrs was fraudulent az n lin - - '
Oral arenmenfs of n,ntions and otbar ,ro.
1iminarv mattcrs arc M aii,Hnd te1I, T., ~ psv
IN s1,cers1;ans in 1rr;tinr ncco15;nn I - tba
course Of the court. The motion WIS over.
rn,ed and the nla;nt;ff Dnnnc +bcn ~ t;,o1 ,,;s
drm11rrrr tn the 1,1eo NJ releos. of erro-s Tin
p|ca set out the rritaec ut 1arre. rs cxscutc1
hy fhe nlajntiff Wood. alone The court he1d
tic 1,]ca sufficient to har the writ NJ error.
and oyerruled thc demurrer. Dunne then
Withdrew his demurrer. audi tilrd aprlieations
thot tl,e release wos ohtained nv the
cnyin and fraud of The d.f.ndants' The
pia1buu, uuhne, us4nIleu ~ tnese .epu
Gallons, % ana assignee 1oT princlpal cause
thal the Hels constituting Lne lraua,
mere ,r a no. gu ou1 ~ m the rcplletioas. upon
tn's 4eAu'[er, lue peI C"'ea'H oplnlon, IN u,
ll!s. =, was gwen: Inc demurrer was sus-
talned, ana IeaFc gwen 70 amend tue repllca-
tions. lNorE.-Asa matter Of fact, the stat
ute. and the case on which this decision was
| Dadr, are in terms confined to NEGOTIABLE
1SsTRCMEsTs.1 The Plaintiff, Dunno, then
| replied anew, setting out the Eacts which con-
| stiluted the fraud, substantially as stated in
| the aff1davit. The defendants denlurred
again, but the demurrer was oycrruied, and
they rejuined, denying the facts stated, and
concluding to the country. The defendants
then moved for Judgment against the plaintiff
Wood, for want of any answer by him to the
| plea, but the Court detiel this motion. The
| Court for tr1al Of the question of fraud, by
jury; and it was directed that the verdict OF
| the jury sn to be found, should be certified to
| the Supreme Cou;t for Judgment, &c,
Charles G. Bonncy was COUNSEL for the
| Plaintiffs, and Powell & Hopkins for the de-
| tendants. In the meantime Mr. Powell had
been elected Judge Of the Circuit Court, and.
having bccn of counsel. of rourse he cnuli
rot tf3 thc case, To avoid a charge Of venue.
it was agreed and entered Of record tLat
julius Manniue. csu.. one Of the counscllors
l. Of tlm Court. shoulu nresife as Ju1]ot at the
trial or theissne The trial was had arcEr1ing1S :
r - &xIx