New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-06-21
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
Tho Express Cnse-ArRumenio Of the cppos.
ing Council for q New Trial.


Ex-Judge Pieuepont commenced his remarks
BY saying that be told that the Judge who tried
this case stated in his address ,he jury that this
most remarkable ease. The council :or the opposing
Marty told him yesterday that IL Was most renarkaDlo
ease and his ssocale Mr. Mckeon, Les l'edy told
him that in his opinion most remarkable case,
and therefore that VIC NAV conclude that there = some
thing strange Ia II. Within the last - .onI, yonf
| honors' heads have made complete circle, the
diameter Of which 81 90 miles and this YOU have
been iLsensb.o OF All nauous have hac tunes IA
which their opinions have been moved IN a manner
which 10 Us seems strange and "a difficult for rs 10
understand the feeling. and excemopts OF those times
Il We hsd lived should have shared IN iLeir eN
o,ements also Whom bis case Was tried 1t wa tine
IN which there was great political cxcIement NJ tht
time there was Presidential election atObt 10 take
place in the country, and Mr.. brooks himself was II
hard hitter In hs payer sld Wa a'so Participant IN
the excitement. AT TIA. tine aas present wien MI
Beuon, was checrea hy - 90 voices and al that time
WIS Kissed by alOc0 thIoats. and # bad besn on
trial for crime at that ac, ana july 20 uc selected
from tleS 400 men. l would have certainly rcen
'oupl guilty ty them In precisely e same condition
uas Mr. Brooks placed whea tlsra vas brough; be,oro
the Cont and iliy were npanecd compose. 81 iLree
Democrats and nine Abltoiisi', and rfte Aboli1on'
sts were Mr. Brooks hitterest enemies their minds
we're naturally Trcgdioed against bin: great excite
uien was prevailing at the time. sad ~ might be eH'
pected thew az Ahyi.tlrnsts, opposed "a HIM. NJ
lie VA, q .lled "Ccppcrhsad" In all tunes ~ great
public excitement. could breathe tAe atmosphere
without being influenced hy IT, md BAY nl. as Il were
!.
mere question which reduced To the issues were sim
ply. F,; What the respective interests oil the
plaintiff and deis ndaEt. Ia the oopaTtno shlp
N The peadlncs 10 THIS aoiion from the 9th Of AO'en
0 49, 70 ,.s r.t a.y o. s.nasrs ,a,sr,, Of the
piaiat.a ANA defendants IN tAe ,ald v"pa!tneg-
ship mentioned in the p'eadiuss In this action,
from tee ist iay Of January lroJ until the 1T d.y Of
july lstJt
fird, Did tie paiu,i al any time between the }oth
DAY OF November, Ir and The Ut day q July. l-t3,
the credit anc character Of the n"W arer establish
ttt fIt., ia MS
lime aud attention private t.ade aid speculation,
pryc tie sad p,r.nership Of any Of The skiH Indus
try. time attention Of Tie paintii TO which Il vas
eniitled did the same give TIE plAntn an Interest
adverse 20 the partnership or Ais duty thereto
The simple question was. whether JAS. Brooks SOLD
10 Clark twJ.sHihs OF the whole payer or sips oi
has indivdun share. Paper A IN The su.t was -
formally sealed document setting cih the nights OF Tie
parties as claimed by Mr. Brooks. Mr.. Cram, after
faying opened the cnsc, introduced loosely written
paper without seal and not witnessed, signed 10y JAS
brooks Both papers bearing The same date. The one
legally executed paper tho other nero mcmornncum;
hui q Iudpe king tie letter e. pcrmitie ed IL In
dcnce and treated oi tine same weight ns paper \
The aeieudnis counsel excepted, but IL was OyeIrued
Mr.. Clark the trial undertook To prove that paper
and that ho wanted TO nave another
paper, AID he took 1t to Mt Banks, his
lawyer, md he told Mr. Banks wat 1t was made for.
ceiling him that lie wanted another paper made IN
better form than iLi. the sood paper. IL was snsu
lar thing avery singular thing that because his paper
got dried Nheh VAS the genuine ana real paper,
that he Should want hiOth'f oIt LIMA H1iu ttat ~
that time be executed chaiie mortgage which fnliy
set forth has terms; but strange to s. on the day be
commenced his action. Claik destroys the very paper
on which he would rely. Would au Intelligent man.
innoo enf uf crime be APT DO anything Of the Kind
Tho council then read the charge of JUDI DAILY TO
the Jury (which be sand gave true and conclusive
abatement Of the case ana commenting upon the pecn
lartes OF larhs conduct in not discovering any mis-
take 20 I'M prant 10 him I'LL oJtcr the commencement
of Tie suit A remarkable iact IN this case was that
Immediately after the Partnership. articles were OBJ
I III
understood, when remembered the bitter feelings OF
po!ii cal parties that Clark. bitter partisan, would
consider il duty ,ct The Epress from Brooks and
establish it according bis own poiltica principles
Mr. Cram. the counsel or Tie plaintiff sad he would
moi do o. bis learned friend bad done 10 wander OF into
history of the trusaGcs and to talk OF Presidential
elcciion aud discuss the merits vi Gen. Mcclellan and
great many other taings that had no bearing Oh tue
argument. lie said be would coahne himself strictly to
the case This ease j. clyi! suit about siNO or
81 90 which he himself had received long ago Ii was
a suit that did not Involve the pol.ucs Of either
parties concerned, but simpy their rights and property
As for Jury he mad never seen more pains taken chan
was taken Ia select the Jury before whom this was
tried. They were uen who knew nothing abogt Mr.
Brooks public man. aud they were selected by Mr.
Brooks party they were all picked men. and tho
lie. ned Judge who tred this said 10 that Jury;
do not mean to compliment You when say that no
better jury than tins could have peen selected.
II was a jury selected with great scrutiny and
care. lie chained that II was not sufficient
to bIrocuro new trial th,t the verdict
Was wrong, but that after e'ing proper weight to
ponderance Of ~ dcnce the side Of the plaintiff and
ON TINT ss much as ANYTHING else. the verdict
founded new trin should not b. granted on the i'm
proper ruling OF the Court IN The ADM sion rejection
of testimony and not otherwise. Court OF equity
" IA not giant new uiai ot an Issue merely the
ground that the Judge received improper testimony On
the trial OF the issue rejected that which was iu
proper although u Court Of law IN shat cas-. would
grant new tria II on ths whole facts aud crcumsten.
ces the Court IL satisfied that the result ought not 10
have been different. trial should not he
granted the ground of instruction OF the
Judge.
First: Because the equitable principles above
stated and even II there misiirecion trial
should be- granted. unless IL made that the
sequence oi injustice was done
second: Eccanso the Instructions Of the learned judge
were all technically correct exJudgc PieIrcponl con.
clgded the argument
lie remarked that the business Of tho Court was had
had the trial been properly conducted. Was u the
evidence admitted legal OF Gotf Inc question was not
OF propondcrating testimony. but had justice been
done IL ali parties anu Ind equal justice been melted
out To all parties The question was not Oh the
quantity OF evidence, but On it, quality.
SUPREME COuRT-CIxcrrr-J uss ?o.-Before Justio
BAHSARp
IMpOLTANT AGENCY CASE
John SimpkiDs agt Joseph w. Low.--The plain.