New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-02-17

acse ca no ss K appear the court exactly who he
az. for We was ordered 20 Tile written appearance
tpitod states sgt. fifty barrels aie'-Liue oi'us'e1
srpFEICR CoURT-sPEc1sL TFRx-Fss. is.-Betore
Jusiice HARBOUR
DECISIONS .
Dou;a Davton act. Edward r. Clark; Julia
lorkSw,ti. &C. sgt ssmuel Zorkowski-Referred' to VIM
SisMnsy to hear and report tv-pesut opened and
cause restored TO calendar on terms. MI. ,,s,
Margaret Gaze ag, Thom.s Pen e. a:M0'i' s''''eu
rhaddeus B. Curtis ag Lewis ~ Van Ee.enIhs ess
large Claim S of s Q, Published
week The Jury rendered verdict ior ths painn oi
492I Thirty days allowed BY The G9n6 10 70 fY ernau,
L"g TspAp fTRx-FEB s-Before Justice MosoRiEV.
ACTION TO RECOVER FoR RArioss
Emil Won Scioening agt. saonsn kohnsta1mn. 80. |
This was an action brought by the plalntlh,
Colonel Of the sd Regiment sont!ne hnowh
Ringers to recover $29'J 80 collected W we I
from the United States Government es the agent ara I9he
the plaintiff and claiming Interest thereon ron tae i1 .,
sepeSer lg me df1@ ca sn+t ,Ssh MONEYS
Justice Monrr held that, under such an snsWe evoeace
Of the clam being ctoas or fraudulent eoud 70. DC L.
II tho d. ndant desired to set up that The money Mn &c
received obtained upon any fraudulent 90 he'lous
that The Goyemment had made reclamation 1p9as |
the amount Il must 20 alleged 10 tie answer % n, re p
iii might have opportunity to come piep fed 70
it, Ana the defendant hsyog @ss q, edt a. , ~ ne he
permitted 70 have the esnse 90 % ot ,Ge .sf
upon payment Ct the tidal and Term ie' ana "
b. enabled such application ~ ~. Sp gs' t'
H. H. r. Brysn aud Js,ae. sheebsn for plainti c&Jadge
Dean and Ghaapcsy Shaier for def.ndlut.
Befof, Justice noArLL.
STOCK TRANSACTIONS NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. ot
ITS CANNOT De RECoyEiED.
H. H. Curtis at Louis ~. E"teD.
This case has been or trial for week past.
II appeared from the eyioGce thst ths psnss va. MIRO
dueed 10 defendant broker and employed him IN certain
mI..ap' defendant /, is alleged repe.cnte3 hat lie did
business with the houte Of L. Patton Co.. and iat ~
Of large amounts oil money 'ho u. -, on
he bad superior facilities for purchasing 'ocAs and 'ne on
small inaTsins -. =, ,,,is
in the Of which tnsaeon rnta paid 70 Won Zen
$4,000 as margins or security the varon ordrs Thee
orders we're taken by the defendant eomaissi9ns We =.
ported then 20 plaintiff a. executed to Patton Co. p ~
directed .es % be made fron time 70 time OF the ssooAs "a
ordered e Be oou and S5 mel IeSo. Sns made
plinH statements Of settlement they were ciied We
indor,ed the several papers passing between the pfe'
Panii e,aod Tia, he ives aware o. the legal effect Of
eSens IN desns. s so Believed o hi.
by which appeared that by the re on stocks Paa'n hea
$1,000 IS6.' Il is alleged that , ds F ns5s ss s
tia, he would be called npon 70 'eiLe wi'h VIZ Phd aSe
whom acting and whom the ri.e on SOCK nu s
sy bis creditor. on these IpPI ~ % named
Cornelius fiske. This part OF d.. transac Won We. y a i''
Of judge Mcneil sent % the Grand Jury Tor
Il alleged that plaintiff then discovered ,hat deehos
had never any tho trsnantons he had pretended 70
have made That Patton had no; FOR years done sny
business with him. and held no money OF SECURES o.
did not carry any stocks for him or his customer VINO ~
scsa H' Tbs esn brought hi. seton to the
so eco paid margin and also 5000 apparent rohts wlSn
/ A
by N. several purchases and sales and which he alleges &c
PENDANT persuaded him TO leave In his hands AZ nrther
mi. case Is one 81 interest 70 more sn the psrie, i'm
mediatey concerned; II pertases soinrwhat 9i puo "a
cr an.e il involves transacons OF daily occurrence N
this ey do to he fraudulent irunsac'ions oa
a, rc ssfds the stock opoFa'ions ,,n,,,..
& ss9H os e rfaP sy das asd Gf and here
that he made by the plaintiff with deirne ny
that hee ~ were be actually purcha ~d iO eas o
were be held Subject to the panth order sneh
yad and could be enforced eud u there vas any r ia
fftaA f.uL
vnS oij every eonc. enI annnls every Transaction
Tho law Of morality acknowledge bat one principle and that
"a b dv ~ do With others G. wo would with them 70 DO
nd ibis gIn as,sae p'91DD az and
fal,shood infic; injury another tue law
ia and su. what he has done violation lsT, ANY ni.
don or to nisead s~o,Lef. entraP cheat hl
or 70 obtain undue slyentase u fraud and avoids any
SO knowing that another !. about TO deal on the Filth Of
his .epr ents,ions party fnownsy mshei false Present.
alton end the dealing upon 'bf aiI .. IT, he must make ma
/ representation good d,
n you believe IN this case upon the evidence that the de-
f,nd, made he representation. testified to by the Psntid
then you must also ind that these representations were use
and Known defendant TO be false Upon t snoeet Is
barely Necessary TO refer the testimony Of Sr Patton who
swear. that dendant had any dealings With their house
The principle. governing the question Of fsnd that the
fraud %s5e' e g., re ,S soT,s. @a . s:s
whether The ,rand are material OF not shead you believe
material.
must NCgk an ectuel iulrry 1ou must be
.s'hed he yres.on oiae fraud and deception rseca by
the ds',nfent he plaintiff have been blurred for II
dsniagl has been cauicd by the fraud action es
= IL uat eppcas That nn paGil Lof only did In fact rely
npon N. fraudulent sienens bot had NIT rely upon
them IN the iu belief Of their truth oleii:e . bis
| ie 4lt and he must take the con q iusEces
The iragd mu't be proved, YOU canuo, presumsH
II you ind sfrstiyely these qlesor then your
dict mast be for the plaintiff unless yon believe hat the prr
and sales simulated real and were not
dee gned 20 b. real by either party.
think tho evidence unccutrdlcted that TIE transactions
were not real and that although they amounted 20 millions Of
dollars, not share OF stock ever bought or SOLD
Did the psnf believe The Transactions were zeal l. the
question for you 10 determine.
The only remaining que stion Of damage Pl,intH
only entitled 20 recover the oy be aeusy paid defendant,
He cannot for supposed proved Profits made on
any Of the transactions uelween the parties
II the transacton unde stood 90 De real
the part Of the plaintiff be l. entitled recover n on the
other band lie did no. Understand 49, he Is hot entitled
recoytr.
Coane both sides took exception 10 portion, Of the
Judges charge.
The Jgy rendered verdict favor OF the plaintiff or the
money actually odyaed by him ard paid 10 doiendsnt viz
t924l OJ and the Court granted allowance Of $500 70
plaintiff.
Co sell Lae!en Bd,eys for the plaintiff Gilbert Dean or
defendant
SUPREME COURT-CHIxBKRs-f iG-Befole Justice
BARNARD.
The People, &c, ~ ri. Cunningham AIT. Bren-
nan, Controller Sc-Mo,ion fog mlndamns denied.
MARINE COCRT-TRIAL TRKx-FEB. i6.--Be.oTe Judge
ALggR.
TIE OPERA SLASDER SUITS.
Annie WILTON ar Henrietta Suiler.
This was al action TO recover 1900 for an alleged
sandr Ny defendant Gan operasnger upon tie pan'lr