New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-06-08
Law INTELLIGENCE.
SUPREME COURT-CHAxBEns-Jusn7 .-Befo. Judge
LEONARD.
npcTsfOy.

Of divorce granted.
GEsxRAL TERx-JuyE before Justices LEONARD, SurH
INLAND and CLERKE-
DECISIONS .
At the opening OF the Court this morning tne ioi-
lowing decisions were rendered:
Adoph Beuscne sg I,aac Amnesty ct al Austin A. Fuller
sg, Bradish Johnson ct William Tyson ct A. ss, cnsIs'
sherin; William r. CLARK agt Joseph Titcomb. survivor
Judgments affirmed with ccss Opinions by Barnard ).
The above heari at the may oehefn iet oo
fore Leonard, P. j., Clerke and Barnard J. ).
THE TAX COMMISSIONERS CERTIoRARI.
The People rel Jonathan Allen ss The Commissioners
Of Taxes and Assessments -
The argument on tho writ of certI0rdrt IN ths
matter then proceeded with. - . A.,
The points presented Were substantially the same as those
cial Term
Before Justices LEONARD, cleric and WELLEs.
THE BOUNTY BROKERS' CASE - VARIANCE AS 10
NAMEs-coSvICTIoS AFFIRMED.
The People agt. James X Coske.
BY THE COURT: LEONARD, 1.-The principal
questions this case arise upon exceptions taken to the charge
The Indictment charged the prisoner with defrnudns John
Robson Tho counsel for the prisoner requested the Re
corder to instruct the Jury II they found there differ
in the Pronunciation that they must acqut on the ground
of variance. =,
The Recorder charged them that 1t for them to deter
mine had the sound III the SOUND
was not the same 1t would be- their duty to acquit.
The in the spelling not observed throughout long
trial during which the name was often repeated nn near
that TIE person deauded who also witness al
the trial. had signed Ls name at the SuHogates oce hoo
We do not know how soupd given by the witnesses
in pronouncins the but appears certain that the dher
euce in did the observation Of the
attentive and wsehn counsel for the prisoner We cannot
say tha, the difference IN spelling was such " necessarily TO
constitute variance The question depended The sound
and necessarily and properly submitted WhMtons
Grim. Lsw) ,,,,.
charged the defendant with inducing Robinson by false pre-
ten.es 60 deliver and tbs, he Did deliver to ,he defendant,
any money but signed paper which enabled the defendant
tie money from another aud the learned counsel
queed the Recorder TO charge the jury that the defendant
could therefore be convicted.
The chuge tho Jury substantially 40 folow., viz
the time Robinson executed assnucbt to the de
endsnt Of his claim upon the county Tor $40 bounty the
prisoner lad in his p.e,on the amount Of money mentioned
IN the Indictment od considered by both parties TO De
long Robinson and the defendant would have paid over
Robinson except for the Of Robinson tina, he nigh,
IT, that just much an obtaining of the so men
toned n the Indictment he had paid to Robinson
recsvrd back The counsel for the prisoner duly
The evidence was that Robinson about 10 years OF
had been unable obtain bis bounty money an enlisted
volunteer without having guardian tppoptedj that the
prisoner had Represented hnsef 10 be captain in cavalry
regiment then IN the service called Tie 9th Scw'York Cav.
airy in which Robinson desired to enlist and supposng that
the prisoner would be- hi, captain, II he enlisted that rgi
men, he had chosen him or his guardian and the Surrogate
Of tho City OF NewforI had HE application appointed
the prisoner the guardian that Robinson had then enlisted
ia tia, regiment and bad taken hi. enlistment oath that the
bounty that b. had received ii that the prisoner paid
him 80 and asked him TO leg The prisoner keep the rest q 1t
tho prisoner would psy 20 him; that Robinson At this
time executed s,ssnment Of bis 300 bounty 20 the
prisoner that the prisoner did not In fact receive the bounty
money till ner day. aud that he then obtained through
tho aid Of the said Assignment.
II does not appear 10 be essential that the prisoner had not In
fact then received the bounty money.
The theory suggested by the Recorders charge can be sus
Tho prisoner became IN. purchaser Of Robnson claim 20
the bounty and tool AN assignment, Of IT, lhs consideration
and Robinson thereby acsnowegcd that he had received IT,
/, wa. his money. lie had the right to receive it.
The prisoner aid Robnsons money. There can be
mo- ths
The popsr cannot PERMITTED urge in his derense thai,
he stated alsehood when he told Robon that the money
Holding the prisoner to the truth Of his assertion may be
Tho rs'a,on on both sides was based on tina, under
Tho wan, Of manual possession BY Robinson does change
the character Of the business The prisoner having persuaded
Robinson 10 let him keep tie money short time apparently
Tor ts sac custody eanno, permitted 70 impose
character upon the Transaction, dferen, from that which he
espc tic pnshment ered by which he stamped
upon the occurrence by what he aid aud do
The Jury Authorized Ia finding under the charge refer
red TO- that the parties considered the money belong
Robinson and that the defendant would have paid il to
and therefore was mo error In Oh" cisrs-.
The ' believed the bushes. to be red and thrre can
believe thu, the prisoner meant !, for reality.
Hayes who was indicted for bssmy not permitted 10
escape puni'hneut because the person whom lie had
produced sna rrrresrnted e. h victim 10 b. minister aud
s~ 'SoS sss6, lls .,s &C. Sr s;S s
Hsys. sE, The People !: Abb ?. H., 1863 Same in
sup. 9Th
.ne CHARGED Ia the indictment proven the trial be
tie s,aeni that the prisoner captain in the 9TH
New ora cavalry material and person Of
ordinary prudence cond have been Influenced by
such representation.
Under many eircunssnces such .,aeinen, would have
little Influence Robinson expected la military
company be commanded by the prisoner lie stated IL 40
20 The prisoner and he did not deny H. The position II
would have created In certain confidential relation
the part Of ;hr pnouer 20 obnson Ie would be- subject
the orders Of the irisourr and largely dependant him for
the treatment he 'heud receive and for food and raj
ineni justice OF tyranny.
In the present instance the fact stated BY the prisoner
material.
These all the grounds urged before for reversal Of
the conviction.
We Of the opinion therefore that tho conviction should
be affirmed and that the Coat Of Sessions should proceed TO
pronounce. sentence.
4. os.,y Hell. District. Attorney, for the People.
Gilbert Dean, for the prisoner.
SUPREME COURT-CHAsD.Rs-JusE 6-Besore
linz - IA