The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-10-01

r,,a Rauort m the Referee and Decision OF
the Court-The Drafts Ordered to be Re-
turned 20 Anne LsrkinR-HIr. King De-
prived Even OF His Two Thousand Dol
lars Fee, Sc.
sUPREHm coURT-cHAMBxRs.
Before Judge Barnard.
This famous case which has occupied the attention OF
the Supreme Court and the public for several days. was
brought to close yesterday by the summing up OF ne
counsel and the rendering Of decision BY Judge Bar
nard The court room was again crowded. and all the
parties interested in tho case including Anne Lorkns
Sonora Bernardo Calderon, Don Tancredo Cruz, Don
Romero. Don Dominguez and Mr.. Marquette were pre-
sent occupying prominent positions and attracting great
attention.
Before summing up some discussion occurred a. 70 the
order in which the argument should be conducted.
Judge Barnard decided that the petitioner being tne
moving party her counsel would have the right 70 close
the case
Messrs walker and Fogarty then In succession sum-
med up The case for their respective clients anayzng
the testimony with considerable warmth and INDUCING
in sundry personal alusions TO the great dedication q
the audience. .ss
THE Dscaos or TINE COURT,
Judge Barnard at tho conclusion 81 Mr. Fogarty's 70,
marks stated that the refcrs appointed by him had
made written repet, agreeing substantially with his
opiniops he thought proper to announce as his
decisIoe. The conclusions were:-
SecordMThat 81, 600 was loaned by Mrs Calderon to
other than the petitioner and that therefore
she mrs Calderon) had cnim the drafts Of the
71irdThat the agreement between the petitioner and
respondent was that the should receive for
the collection of the drafts He had not collected them,
and therefore not entitled 10 that sum OF money
Regarding these as the proper conclusions from tne
entered directing that the $63 000 minus the DOC
claimed by the attaching creditors BIO paid over TO Anne
the INTERPRETER SIS and tho stenographer SIS
The report OF Mr.. John D. Macgregor the referee,
alluded &c " Judge Barnard, was as folows'-
To tho Hon. GEORGE G. BARsAnc, Justices--
attorney OF the Court supervise the examination OF the
witnesses in this proceeding have the honor to report
In connection with the evidence t9xen the Ioowug cu
cIusions which seem to me just and proper IN tho
l. rho defendant, Mr.. King received the drafts n
question merely for collection No litigation or legal
services were contemplated at that time necessary
The duty he performed in collecting them was purely
mercantile, and could have been performed ny T ny
broker or business who MT an attorney me
charge of for such service would a. an attorney
or counsel ee be altogether prepositrous ana exloon
ate Mr. King does not seem therefore TO nave any en
on those drafts as attorney, there being no precedent
for enforcing lien excepting where services o. srcry
professional character are pcIioln.u lr hsd lon
Phillips 4 Staeg, Edw. r. 1OS
No testimony has been produced on either SIC" 70
prove the value OF Mr. Kings services as an attorney
Mr. King relies upon his agreement, by which he was
to receive 50 600 for collecting the money Executing
the statement in his testimony chat he consde red 10
sought tohave' So O00 there Is no testimony whateVer
us to me value of his services as attorney or counsel
3. Although no value of Mr. Kings services as
attorney are proven STILL since the employ
ed him. and asks relief against inn in summary
form, officer Of tho court his rcaonaole cains
may be allowed and this can ~ DC nass o as 10
their value as any other Of application Tor an
allowance 81 is liberal remuneration FOR all thst
he did in regard to Mrs. Lorkng's busn S.. Indeed 1t IS
fairly nfcrable from the evidence that she expected
and desired the money 10 be realized Immediately ion
the paper which could have been easily aonc oy se
And il is also probabl that she expected the 81 600 se
was willing pay for the money TO cover that discount
4 These considerations dispose Of the present mo-
tion excepting the claim that Mr. King acting Tor Mrs
cadcron had advanced seven thousand dollars On .ne
to Mary Simpson, who Is alleged to have been dier-
person from the petitioner Anne lorsing, ird TO be
the owner Of these two acceptances.
The test nony the subject 10 very contradictory and
irrecoIc liable There is however, no testimony thai the
drafts poy ablo in the OF Mary Simpson were not
purchascd b, tho petitioner Anne Lorkag in Cuba and
ths Is the point which the evidence should have BET
directed Il hs Tile Of Anne Lorns 70 al s drafts aS Sas
easily and clearly established II the respondents version
WEs tho CORE one. .f.
dorsed by Anne Lorng underneath the signature Mary
simpson, and also endorsed by MIR. King. MI. King
stated when the drafts were poduc tnat hc cnuose-
rcnt Of Lorking not on them when he deposit
Oh them In the bank but no explanation Is made as to
how those endorsements could have been made after tie
deposit the bank is IL ntc'gibc why Anne Lor.
king should have been made or forged
upon shc unless upon tho theory that she had been
the owner. l
Tire Testimony relative 20 the exisence OF another
Mary irapson and her having any interest in any oil
these drasts il utterly unsatisfactory and unrel able
HAVING this conalls0n, am also led to dis
credit chs lain that 81 900 advanced TO Anne Lor.
king, any for her. on those drafts or any 81
them Excepting Mr. King, none Of the witness who
testified 10 such transaction able ~ give the details
cssacter OF It, although they testified 10 seeing some
monby counted aud even Mr.. Porter, who was called
In expressly, as well rs Doinngucz and Romero, who
were acdcntly there did provo satisfactorily that the
Transaction was ioan TO whom, or by whon or On
what security for Whist perod on what tcrns No
due bill other evidence Of tho transaction was
taken. -.--as .sSE2 II ~ =,
IL Is not necessary dscredt Tho statements Of Mr.
Calder0n, sc. she not present. bHt gave Mr. King
the money at her boarding house. Wbet became Of IL
/ srv ccu,s pot t2l. excclt from hearsay.
In this view OF the whole case do not brd the test
ony In support of tho alleged advance satisfactory
tc justify tho retention Of the drn IS by Mr. King rs
.,vttv r,ro m rerASdy bv