New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-10-19

the subscription OF tnrh hhirs
was Mind evidence which they are not permitted 70 des
nom afisrwads or to impair by any eyiI .aeinen pr
other ,he statements of Clake and Brooks
which r.nd-ed necrtsry 10 fall bnck upon we on ~
IRONY Of the two flei wisnerss" sa 70 ONE or b
other In respect the inst Of those hIn,nls t" 20
no aueron as 10 is senu and the defendant rooss d
husef admitted that the Signature va. as pt 10
reception the srouDd that Il wss op.snsa "a h T..
out any snoTsdss ca h pay o,t nr-,so,ed 70 him by
Clarke up July 1898 0f party would ssa pspsrs
" Of IN, . and t.o:s In tSa Wow tao cole
ton easy, bat tie difficulty Was INC sur
on nDoh-r slso signed by Brook sd also 10 '
Do son CLARKE differing from the other N tno noss
sial par ol t. 'e enc giving on n,eres' Oh ppe a ,
rrcsrntrd the s;I;srnrns OF 40 paitn ,ati ~ '
attendant BROOKS pointing out their discrepancies ana co
that lie deemed most important foi the 1ry 20 AZ,
then went what importance was &c D. eacci 70 .c
Of papers TeI I'VE On ,ss, nd ben
yery psuiy slated hat hing vast, b. presumed akIs.
Tho party who destroyed written instrunent for ihs simple
hat the Impression On s nina winch QUO lea h
10 destroy p,pr mus nave been That tie contents "oun ue
hoss 20 hs claims That, Of course would dop nd alto
y.,r goou IA. mal.siiy OF tins insirnGent destroyed
and In particular cas-, they nu't tsse into con
..sion The fr-''n --'isn-n - - 49, y.
REGARDED the instruments IS 90 no lhipisn e' 'r-' 49,
the case II altered the effect very materially ih'y uus
also consider the ruiE,lcn # The boozs OF lhs LgPr o.
&c. md he need not cav that II that utsiion could b.
traced 90 party Il .houj L-ve great weight against them
The difficulty was % a.o.rsn VINO na'p ,r n1 ys,
IN the physical tnd acn;i cDrs2hy oi JAAus . h
boots the receivers appointed by the CONT ara Nsle
fore Under thois control ana they wore -, .
20 tho Court and The plaintiff io their saie eJ e'I
yaton and they both declared that rey bad no ~
. mu,istlon sl.o Rad Clarke All they tnew VS. ,hs'
Cake examined h books. sna 1t as aea hst no ticL ~
covered The nu,i.lon the oxsFrnsitn being made und
p.ra,,.ion grated ~ ihe Govt wss question Of s-.
and cruibiy and their decision "onst pc ~ 80
prs--nl fe.ui 10 afy The oher; 0rt still ey must
raSc hrmly rna clearly aHd ho took l. ~ sIisd .'ey
would Tho next question hai rcirrhcs 20 .io ousno'
hirh fsrlr while c5psrtner engagetof boytDg and sell
ing ,.ocks. Tho question: snbi;sniaiy was I'M; "i VIC en-
q ;!ng ,uct susncas deprive the paEneIP Of euy tD5
ton o. the skl md industry, time, To which was eisu
give him an nsere', adverse TO that o. tio
Thi, question invovedfrs the cofisrapol "hehe 20.
h1rness W.. prosecuted without tho knowledge ana aains,
The consent the ol,r two primer. tns soilea III
he prosecred bnSlne,, oa' he stated ~ TIC mos,
tenn. that blsin>ss IN tina, particular ns' perfectly
well known 10 the Broes'e, and that tiey NV ~.
about IT, and MADE any complaint IL that "s' 50 10
aw very ceuri It coud not allow partner 70 ccmPIn
Court 0; another partner ea5sss ID G,ss go Id
s st1tsu,eIt q. denied By the MesJs. BROOKS, who
d tho .ns no9! Of q, operations LAM, n 80 ,so q ia
NOV the the I'd c February so' as appeared rom
b. rt,sI snq ws' ,Y y, NJ C.lsa sps,ns ia tst
Dn.ne, IN the being rrejndie 10 tho interests OF
The Ee' AID ihe reference 70 u we. rnpy % % Lse ~
no ,pecusiirs In stocks in other words .asis
= simply The eI 9 va. . 81 Il s scd tie name
Of ito firm while ,PrcuistiHs IN 80 peos' ou.'hsss.
sd,r that seemed acuaom ior ovrry ps''on .nssea
tho money department Of new.psp~r 70 .. enssssu ~ '
saS'; 0e fSs .. y. e ss% nS,Tsf Ii. .
his purposes nd 10 the te,imGny o. oon vi. % "a
that point A. 70 tue Declarations sh 20 haN' Cen --r =.
Chrfe Kc,,e ard Coctron, which were certainly very
facan. ones fihey true. sad must exercise sI,at
sscaco CRY tho decision 81 s ase-,ion VOL 81 ..
exercising interest adverse 20 that Of the paper On,
upon general ereaibty for hr Csrte nsd IN TIE no's
explicit d-nei ihat b" o. nose
nd hrfslor- u great nhuence in weighing every
oih,f part VI his testimony. ~h-h L9.".. my VIZ
csusiering that point was only 1suce u PIT ohso thA'
tlsv should coutsr tho probability Of his making o. dsin
saercr. that b ~ss In TIE habit not Of dsch'rs
~ ~. - ~ a. sr'v bu, for his interest Ito thea Lee
rr.A th- sirgrd alteration Of tho Cumberland Coal Com
pays Gspon by Mr c'.se and apPsd e IL 'he 'sle s'e
iuas directed DO tried ~ the Court and hica ne
Az. below ia couEec tion " ~ tie seidlc, 49,, -.
IT,. ny then retired IT lf9 p @ ana returned lh9 toufI
5oS WITH .heii verdict. whch yas In "Tfnz ard ran ~
3D., 80 fr,, Issue ,r VIE, ver. the respective ntee,'s
Of sn,T and defendants N TIRE copartnsrsh'p mentioned
e. tho hs action from the sfn day OF roy.beT
1855 70 ths day January 6l the jury hnd chat the re-
tocr:.yo lssrsss Jsgscs Brooks oseAeli. Liss.s
br~ci. cn--iLird end STEPHEN r Csrie. one 'lrih.
GA toe ,ecoui i.us. What were Tie respective IN
orc che plAin snt t':endan' N ne ,id cyner,nP
~ s1 unfh The l.. isy o. july, 1853, th- Jcry hid
respective interest. wor. James BROOKS one h',
ETa.iu. BrqAs. dIi ard stephen l. tsrse one ,-in
90 s h. t sss sy Or to,t" 1 G anti the it DAY Il
.issnt r.nlio,d IN 10 pl,sinss g. this aciicn and
hs tiae aud attention In rEnsie 'r1ie o. svrcn.
l-iion sd did such iTste or 'p-cn,a'ion eepr'Se
aronon Of tb, pGutr 70 which was -aed of did TIC
give tie psn,f interest sdvrse to h. partnership
W. 20 r,hc on pksd the ConTi .or otdes 20 stay rEe
cscd.us, fgr % dsys, n order 70 prepare case.
"a. tabirss,r-W- ls,. q" oig-ci. on I" tnHt ,
be .tos, I'd On the cas-, and the Con-, adjourned.
SPscisL IsEs-Ocf. ls-hr,ofc Jadre tskpo1o
DBcis;oss
Iazo Ggt. Whiton-See papers. Grenol sgt.
Ru,hausI otion denied without Reprnin a. Liver
sst Jerob i. Van iuper-aoton granted With : 10
costs Grcrso odlin. at Abraham : tnderhll ct al
fNat - Al u. f.rual