New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-10-13
COURTS.
SUPREME COURT-Cmcr1r-OcT. l2-Before Mr Justice
DAVE
AN ALLEGED FRAUDULENT OBrAISMEST AND ASSIGN


MINT.
Preston Ware. ct. el. It. LOWS L. Whtehouse
The plaintiffs. Preston Ware and Aonzo Lilley,
aver that the defendant commission dealer IN boots aud
shoes IN New YORK ana tHai ae Pilns were az tle IN u
and gners Boston that the defendant received certain
goods them their agent TO take orders from retail deal
es in CATERS supply them with these articles Of
the plaintiffs manufacture with which the phinis were 10
supply him 10 IN such orders and TO allow him four per
commission the OF such sales and It was also
agreed that the plaintiffs might drlW The defendant al sight
the end Of thirty days after the date OF each Invoice Tor the
Of the lees his commissions and be would accept
and pay their drafts for the that theregpon IN pursuance
Of orders received by the plaintiffs from the defendant he rep
resentng he wanted goods ordered 10 I'LL orders he
had received rom other p IN pursuance o. NE sai4 ggse
nine cases or boxes containing 300 pairs OF shoes
and ghtgs' IN TIE months OIL June anu Jug, f
let1 at tie value OF sIlto 20 over ana ABOVE inc
defendants commission that large portion OF the SAID goods
were haudueuu ordered and received without ueeuaH &
ceiVug Any orders for them from customers that the plaintiffs
defendant and he refused 70
cept for them and about July p e0j failed aud
suspended payment IN bis business ana announced muse IN
solve al made general assignment OF his property ID
the plaintiffs demanded back property and be refused 10
comply but SIN detains the to plaintiffs loss to the e1
tent o $50 The plaintiffs further that the defendant
with fraudulent intention received from the palnis during
the month Of April 1868 be sold by him as agent goods TO
the amount OF 500 which the defendant sold ind has not
tNd me proceeds 10 plaintiffs thereby causing paAts
This brought these goods their value with
Tie defendant denies that he received tho goods above
in ann Wv deladipg he pstiff or tRat there was any
ogIeeRen between him and PLAINTIFF by which plaintiffs en-
his p to induce plaintiffs 70 make any such agreement ant
generally denies acting having the power 10 act as the
agent o. plaintiffs excepting snch agency might arsa nom
selling small portion Of the goods mentioned BIT defendant
admits that there agreement that plaintiffs should draw
plaintiffs usual time sales of their goods to customers IN
New York ba claims that he TO have discount Of Tour
in plaintiffs complaint Defendant denies that plaintiffs dey
ere 20 lin the 90 in pursuance OF the agreement alleged
By plaintiffs and also denies that lie represented that he wanted
said goods 90 m received for them tie
ogn plaintiff. bu, sys that he purchased all Of
/.
OF these goods gcd and claims reduction for
overchrgc Defendant admitted the consignment 20 him b.
plaintiff OF The goods alleged 10 have been sent IN April l,
but denies that be obtained them with any intent to defaud
signed by him 10 plaintiffs.
The Plaintiff Preston Ware and the defendant both testified
Their testimony very conflicting and contradictory Plain
tiff gave evidence that tie defendant assured him when obtain
mon that assurance a be let him have the goods Defendant
testified that De made such
In summing up defendants counsel argued that the obligation
Of fraud rested upon the unsupported evidence Of the plaintiff
Whelouse and said that this Fcpeyin in which
G goods il hey could be found the defendant would have
70 give bail whether found the amount Of The
Indictment else 90 jail Counsel also eoncadrI tla ihe
wa no proof agency but that the goods were bought out
counsel conterded that the testimony Would inii.
cate that the defendant informed plaintiff that he worth
$40 90 when al time he vas30 900 $40 900 in det
and urged that It impossible that the defendant could e
;yroraft of his condition According 10 his he
owed his brother old debt Of sODo and in short time
cunulated debts the amount Of 900 or $4,000
the Cont charged the jury that the points FOR them decide
% whether the defendant did agent FOR plaintiff
legged i,1 lie 9 10 lin he bSs Of Ohefs An Another
Toi5 WIS whether this property obtained by fraudulent
tley must decide that BY the evidence which
ed "a b. eyeny balanced II claimed By the defense that
dfnt conducted his business IN such manner
~ ccnut o stock understanding anything about book
ir- tbst he did not know exactly Low be stood II NAV
~ a eirg heavily engaged IN business and acquainted
with It's details be might have thought be was worth more than
- - I, h bis intent that consider but looking
Re oue,tou in another light must inform you that II
asserts thing believing II 70 De true and Is not he Is liable
g -. -ni,s that TOW from that After CIV
ing the jury instructions IN relation 10 TIE forms Of their yer
& L,ucbt n verdict FOR plaintiffs for e. 80 ls and dam.
go Cor re detention OF tie goods az sJ2l y.
Chsrss smith for plaintiffs VIM H. Story for Defendants