New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-08-13

lions that lad been given tat anss gaze Linn the PIPER
and he gave il 10 brooks and TIL nm 1t was the bJ OF
sale that Bangs had drawn. and ked hin " examine
That Bangs returned 10 ae ss a p bIeS rev ,e3r.
NOT being able 10 get executed thai al the end OF tnat tine
- ,r f,roi arid Of copartrcrstp ex.cuied which
ngrred % ~ the drdauts ana Kat Ia Decenoe ~ lie
went 10 another awycr &r LAYTON, aud employed him 10
dreW the article al the sine giving aim pape- which
B.uc. lad prepared without cXlmulg 10 ana requested MN
g. m te a copy Of H. night b" executed hat he re-
ceve e draft of ne article Il copgi1eIship o. the copy Of
the bin II SALE and tue J0h az nuari soJ Che arces
we're signed by himself and dance and Erastus Brooks and
The il Of SAFE was e1teui'" Y' ~ Au iIhesseu
by Erasus Brooks This oil 81 te QThUit al IS tAe o1c
nready referred transferring OILY one siSh OF two
nirds II was shown have been coz 81 by IaW0ns 1rks
nom aroLer paper bI the click ccud na' sry frnn whom
KIN winch took ec, from their da,e the I'm Of Jenuary
tG deo IRE that IL prniiT and james and ETas,us Brooke
EraSus 4 one.sizh Plaintiff Of si1tand that
sncl and propretos thy had hrNDoa pnbsned
hrG for he purpose Of cOEnnnr the par gAd On
the business establishment theTrf agreed become cop n
also testified that the plp prepared bv bang the original
OF Exhibit A, destroyed by him, together win an uneA
from his desk, time bctweca the execution Oh io
aru is OF cop 'rtueishp AMI ho commencement =" te ,
That he destroyed sem With other papers 81 posing theH :"
be Of ne further use ard 9t he nr'er a'o2eaea t4a1 -
called 10 it aier the commencement 4 he splits that be sup
posed mortgage the * hi \. upon The cup
Jos zion that Bags made mistake n the one lac continued
The laniif then called Bircs Tie remembered the plain.
df cahi upon aim, rocolec OILY one Interview.
lie asked what ran.pr % which tho a. srtcnt Oh
ected Tie objection was oyr uc1 and tho defendant
cepted Tie witness then tAat me plaintiff brought
hun and about - state what occurred htfetn
the paut n and hmsol the defendant objected The
81 cii,u was oyorru,, an, defendant excepted Bnls
ies fled tu'tt y '' 3Nnilad o. BAN tie paper as
corta iug the 4 cement jr She purchase by him
OF IA interest The Er2rrss That 40 could only state the
subtnce f he Instructions De had received ih hey Wcfo
substantially that the paper brought by The pan LGd pc"
III existence time TINT nothing had ben exc
cuted carry ou thar the plaintiff wanted paper exc
carry the ono shown by hm To tie witness ana
fhat his Instructions % draw .rch rhpef ihit 'I
sid something about the DrOpctir Of The Erfss consisting
subscription Is ypr &C.. ana ulN lI'S sR'u .u. 10y
rrer TART # tie prV,ry q newspaper est hshment "is
s,mewha indefinite ms was Ct q Whole OF ibe '''egcS .,
the defendant hHve trial Bangs Orther SAID
upon the direct that he drew pltr oI The pnhu pay n
mo- ma be did That he rcorofed that the paper
him by tie painE was bino oa ana mort Que
buf he did no; remember But this liter eVi-
deuce even # rad excepted to. admissible The
question beirg how these two conflicting papers, 1 ihe simo
GATE 10 be executed
The witness IS cross examined by TIE defendants and tho
result Of 1t this: laat he tried 70 Doe careful man IN
ln had made mistake. would not say
that be had for he did not know Was
avs luc Dl TeeG WIT ne party meant but he
had doubt whether e had read 'r pnpr De- rfphcl D" ts
ne H. lie had nov the slgtcs recollection OF the de- s o.
Exhibit 10 dl1 Not Ieeggni1' uor LHh1i a. ,nt be
had dtf ed paper lie Exhibit h ~ neaf' ~ be could
rcocct the pfp,r he drew corrpordrd n substance 49,"
re-oR Of coHi'.'s correplndcd sub,1nlny WIN
ne ainti hewcd him az no, IT, with lin; bis rscol
eet sthat be- csme acquainted with its contents and
hen drafted The paper W ich he drew
The .nbtaSc tnsn q lie witnesses testimony that the
plaintiff hsd brought psper Of DE dc4i of which he
kd not The ,lr t lection AID that be- drew paper
from IL for tie lAGtd the contents f Ubcn - ne bot Of
bis recollection correspond with E1Libi ~ lar thee'oe
general testimony went vas as favorable Tor lhe de-
James Brooks testified that abort he tire refrei 90 by
p ncs paper spending W Exhibit vas tr"lcl Co.,
together ai1 cnaiiei morgage bJ M pinhi tai -
told the plaintiff that there was no lsr in hs Giving ehaeI
rOrtgege. tlat they euuld get along HmedhN @ no tho
a1h! W a5s p PS 'a Ss - dv 1s ~. en- o st
thew we're trusting oher and that be throgks, I'D
not any necessity f'r craving P'l'Is ~ q ~"
form because they could GET along rs part
ners 80 that the fact If the prenar4an ard eH,ienc' 81
these papers established also By me testimony ~ bf rs
business when CURED aiin Bangs lad been
IN FOR some me and ihu n9hl"f ha been
him in 'Dutry, SO That u was mel'ri1aum o. ir o.
II Ike Of nv tvonirs int rest giving
for his share That the pr'poin ena iu1d 70 "a
hib A. that or oh that appears iron ts p'riioa - me
estinoy Of Bangs may vel have been tue per which
the lns brou rit 81 a and 20 winch DE referred ns
Exhibit Bangs dd swear that the paper bfongA o.
linn was Exhibit C. for he bad not the si 81 rcc'fc 0f oi
is contents did this ~ 1L-sslD" testimony in my Nh'
eid prove I'D Do IN nny 49, conflict with ~ COZ
radct lie testimony 81 Brooks could tsreore ~ no a"y
have operated % the prei 10 ~ %" deiehdah- Aa
said about the property OF The Lfrss consisting u usc
onl S. types &C.. and OF the inori le character u SUCH
property was eutre, nmateFa aud had bearing ugoa
apg ques ton involved 10 the case.
Two facts in ihe testimony u Bangs one Of which va
admissible even bad been eIceicl 10 ana me Ober o.
which was brought CUT p1 INC ',l'nD'"'1 ..'i H -
animation Of the witness nay have hd on influence un
testified that tie paper brought u vas %
blue color, IN the respect corresponding WIN LA., o.
that was hi- impression that the Was hot LEFT win
nm; that became acquainted with IFS teEt' ana IN
dew the paper which was the orehul o. EA"iuH y.
Jury possibly from this crcunstance nave bi rd vat
Bangs. having Exhibit belre him, aan I"mrmh""g
that the interest Of Brooks twothrds Gnd that
the sale be made by b may by mi'tke have drawn
the bill Of sale and the mortgage Tor oneAth 81 twoius
6v These facts NAV 10 connection win othef
testimony led the rg 10 that eoneot bli
defendens plaintiff II 1t had any tendency ener
toward producing The impression th9t the ppef
h. he nj INF
sxTressed in the original q Exhibit A.
mi, viii suffice tina, reception Of this testimony
had no Injurious effect upon defendants The
ra remark be applied 10 the other EXCEPTIONS Ihe are
too in detail and wall advert OILY TO
those which are contained In the appellants points The qne
ons put Bangs foos 5l3 5I as TO what he WOOL ave
done 10 suggested were nadmissbe as calling Tor
The opinions and conjecture Of the witness Tie issues 70 be
tried framed BY the que on' Any pertinent evidence
tbs court had nothing to do with amending the
pleadirgs Exhibit C. was admissible as docImen'aiy
the ssues The manner in which Clarkes interest
was 70 be paid for immstera the question being what
his interest The exception at folio lsS referred to IN
defendants point wes taken BY The painth Lhe witness
aerward testified folly as to the conditions which we're ~
quired about by the question put at oo 0 ana the same
remark applies the next question folio I'll The 5s9i
at folio o7s was UNNECESSARY and nnins ns haDIS
came from, by deducting the expenses during that
period from the receipts and they we're specifically
conflicting evidence upon the question whether the plaintiff
used the character and credit OF the newspaper N
business The plaintiff testified tina. be dd not Tre the
money article referred 10 by Gen Dix and he denied that he
eve made the statement swo-n 10 Dy COcHOt LiN'hcS
Cohen and II was therefore for the jury 10 judge 81 the
question OF relative credibiy. and their hndng upon the
oint conclusive upon the other branch 81 ne question
there was no evidence sufficiently certain 70 warrant mad
ing that the partnership deprived OF any OF the t IN
deyoting time and ofthe plaintiff by bis specnatng
,ock The appe points state the same OF the executions
10 the charge Court well taken they are not pointed
ont and find none In nv Judgment were well taken tbs
embraces review ali the exceptions relied npon or stated
In the defendants points and vii now add that heaTI ne
xdspce In this that since the argument have read tie
boe of II carefully and collected and compared different
parts and conclusion that the weght Of 'he 'es
,nonv h 10 favor OF the verdict