New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-10-09
CIVIL COURTS.
COURT Or COMMON PLEAS SPEcIiL TEEM-PART L
OCI s-l;eiorc Judge CAEDOZ0.
TIN LAW OE STOLEN BONDS

OcT s-Bciorc Judge CArnozo
TIN LAW or STOLEN BONDS.
Thi, case was concluded yesterday, establishing
ry O. liability Of Bakc-- aud Brokers in purchasing lost
n Al h. r,e .,,. liz IN. snt yes lra~t T., recover
81 ~, 'rice ron b,I rs, ~. rilf NJ Sen. iS "a
M .,i5snce showed M = 10 ri,,F az one, took nronc
hi hi W ~ a. VI lnll,lu a. one ~, O ~ r,
~ m, raiIV h, > \ IIpI of ,r, printed set
tng fo-ta - lumber. ud description Of the stolen Bonds
Yr,i, bonscs 81 ,fi 80 Tho r., irce showed that one or
T ~ s.s ' q 1 & bSe Of me dc.
t,1,nt.
~ r,ntig oiso ,1' oil IN tho Secretary Of the Trca
sur ,i' mo- lin hi f. same Information that was
e,n.ood In 10 ,r, - IN answer 10 This telegraph he re
ct lotto ,b,t & of tbc,nssine Bonds Ind been
-, ~ ~ I'D mon the cashier of The RAM and
l.,,i.l ~, 49, - WIS r.fnsed lie tbrn Iron ,ht
sl 70 recover iaeF !ai le oas . oceul4Ga me giien
t'a oil me te.r' i'i 49, ~ .u sane u'.'' C u
charged ihc iuty rs iel.'Ns 1T, =. a., al, 49,. l..
dn,u IAu! ssJ t I DH T. '' " 'ns ' sou' no,
1Anln,d y shpA.A. '- ,.'i ~, o ny PyGlCe, - w
eAs. s-9 ,s' I'M ~, ~ ,. az s, NV IVA va
ote Eh, W. va ~, ~ la - Igii i
cetaih PVe.l3 UVlois3- ~ T." %" Us e
S '.r, IN iss,rSyc SO, fr n s@l,pca Thcsc two
bonds found subsequently the possession OF The defend
No. ~ ~, 49,. n - ~, wv, t1 ~. ~ IN i,ris viii ntn;
q" -, : 49, - bI1 II l" la"lA',s 'o t - ~ ~ t
an lou Nnlci "a y, loI 'lhl a.ou " TiSr ~ nus
second thai they were stolen ION nae h@o lh ei'cisns
ON OOih sdes as 20 tnose points anu sld' t Ie s
20 inou, ia NM, H. bc entitled ~ rcrry or
90 the puh WIther tht piaiutH ue t" ~ W
n' ma, deP,ha upoh taJ I.So "nyIy' "i'' ", mn
tle uveN,n i LulV"' III t1 49, - ia
without notice thai they hAu pN1 Si"eL ~! ~,
tler having been proved atlm'@ on ih e
defendants 10 snow lh@t t",I i;co're 'H ii i
are payable 10 bearer hld AeiVoIs Ps ~ Ilti t-.ihs
point OF course If the defendants did lot purch and lly
for he bonds You need not consider me ,S any ilh 'ly
could not hold them and the verdict should he Tor The aht
II you arcaished however from the testimony that tnc de-
fgontS nartcd with value for these bonus the ret question
dill they do good faith without notice the Acft
The burden Of proving that he purchase was made IN LAD ann
uln 'uS ~ 80, " III J o,co 81 no bc IT.
claims ih imnediac upon ulSC1..I1s ne I5s uu o
same evening that occurred cnosled me pCe n caused
you advising the pubic o. inc nlsicuny anu '':o.n-
them against purchasing Tie stolen securities ana DC n.
t1 the evidence Shove that carry on tAc heAt mo,hs'
and before tlf usual business hour. some Oh NC Gneu's
I9,lns OF which they either had or VIII iS1s ,3.
care ana sinon nE r bc ' , t hS| c,,i,id 70
your Nef9i9t poia ha9 Scn igiu a' tnVE n ,
inls-I ap' % al Ia IN, =, ,i u' t jrt i v
IA any event 10 nil"uh 10 ifc 10 v' 'is '', Wv l'
cuar would COZ or ihc bonds IA question: AMI tri sft ais"
apply TO another issue docs o. think constitute any once
that had mscsthcm The real important esi,n IN IN
case ibid the notice ever zach Tie decan ~ II az
and tcy chose 20 d ~sarl H. then they are o i
good frith because hcy purchased after noli' or EiN
shifting taClr g. Is ag nOi I oterw" a 9se Gcy
no'ir implies bgd la'th. on mus co,."Ca uu 4,
Sss!hc he defendant. ever received It ad o. coui, +
they did not and pared viii value Tor tt bon A as iAr
any bad a; them thcy VIII bc entitled 10 your 1c,,.c
net cncusn t the notice before Of c officers l he" he
taak left there; you mas; hc sled tam ;Ac DE- e. is
recciycl before they fought the bonds u You It IN oc
a. uese i"'ictS Wos eil g. lu' ''su' t,'i -
10. lVl 10 sI ae.Lrt - ny ~ '' ,; i,i = M NJ
WIN !g9 10 i Sal VIZ " =; ~. n S ~, t .i,c ,It
leIsoaloe 10 l.uI y w, al n ~, H. H. ~ e.
nISmL'.u W., '. ii d" - I,,, ~, c,,tc-s ~, :, IN
ne cHOSt 70 tr.' 4, .sn Il. -, ,~,.i Co. .,.
IiInc4iaTI MAJ Wy . w 49,. ~ ia, t,, -
pthhliH gave C'n. liO'ot o., ~ W 80 ~
the NOTICES each sN-iE w. ny I1 " nv ~ ' , IA
them on the hol-h sac o. Hi, "l "A'c' Ic &c '-'
place 81 business Is iofac 'fh az SSf' ~
not undertake 70 say MAJ ID N t'i uiS'iy' OK
having entered tle de,cAhn', lF'ii.'S Iht - yin ~
D,tisO1 SAYS thai he cnici tAt ,elcHHh.S @N ION e
Ni1lst cOof ana thu nc pietU oHe % tl,so 'l.uli.'
0na ttS WHICH nc "'a', - Why s5e hi' 1,sh -. ',l %
te9eii Lana s'ie ~ ~ ~ MA n sn!
ChsIlei DcSh@ nn he 's' sc 'l"'t nc T. i W"
uesA On VIC opposite si "! tuC C.yi h"II wy VJ,'...
hA"rs w ~, 'tsN - l' l ..la " ~ ~ -. ~
tlc one w yea ia, ION sN'I' VIZ Si
Is To- 80 Hi i q. c U ' SC iSer , i NJ crr
len, as the plaintiff claim, whether the first witness Is not