New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-03-27
Thc McfrOI Case.

This case came up before Judge Belts yestor-
day. The case coming on for trial, pursuant to adj
ournment Mr. Eyarts stated that at present the claim
was put in On behalf of the Messrs Forbes as owners
Mr. Dickinson claimed that the first issue to be tried
was whether the Messrs. Forbes were the owners oil
the vessel and on that the claimants had the arma-
tive. =,
MIR Eyarts argued that both that issue and the mer.
it's should be tried together and that the issue raised by
the denial Of the Government that the claimants were
the sole was Elusive. That this did not deny
that the claimants were owners, but admitted H. SET
ting up only that there other owners. That this
admission Of itself entitled them to be heard as owners
United States District. Attorney d. T. Dickinson re.
piled that the Government was entitled 10 know all the
owners. but that the exception WAS sufficient.
The Court stated that the DistrctAttorney had the
night to try the issues in the order they had Sc
lecied.
Mr. Eyarts then proceeded to argue that there was
no issue raised by the exceptions, they admitting that
the claimants were owners; or that II there was an
issue was that there were other Of the vessel
beside the claimants, which was m affirmative propO
stion, TO be proved by the prosecution.
MIR. Dickinson TejOined that the exception was
denial mode d 6rH'a Of the claimants demand raising
the whole ISSUE end that II was TIE right of the Gov
eminent 70 have ell parties Interested brought in They
were entitled to have the real owners brought in.
Mr.. EyartsWe say You are not entitled to have any
who DO not choose to come m.
Mr.. DicSiuson-Ihe rule is the other way.
The Colrt.-This proceeding being ~ rem, the
parties entitled TO frame their proceedings as they
please: they have done so and framed two distinct
is,ucs snail therefore consider that there are two
issues be- ore me and that the District Attorney is
tilted to cell up whichever issue he pleascs
Tho DisuiotAttorney ihen brought up the issue on
tie exceptions.
Mr.. Ry.ffs-You then bring on the cause
The District tt0rney-Youma call as you please
7 call up the issue on the exceptions.
Nh. Eyarts tLcn argued That this was q case Tor
Jury beinc an action for the forfeiture Of property.
The Court ovcrrucd the objection.
Nil Eyarts then raised the point that The proceeding
against the ship was but cumulative proceeding in
addition 10 the punishment OF The person for fitting out
the vessel and that u was necessary before the con
demunc OF the vessel that the crime DO proved by the
Indictment and convic ton Of some offender.
Tie Court directed tlat the trial 20 on.
Ir. warts wished 20 know in what capacity MI
Webster appeared-whether for the United States or
the informcr or outside parties
Mr.. DickimOn-Air Webster appears here SIMPLY %
assist ,hrolgh outside Of this Court he represents
other parties. l move on the inst Issue. .
hr. Evgri5-If the isiTicl-Attorney rests without
further proof move 20 dismiss the libel.
The District AtoIney-I shall move % strike out the
claim unless they proceed. and for judgment Of con-
demuaion and forfeiture as on default
Nr. Eyarts argued that il being admitted that claim
ants had standing the COurl II the Government did
not prove ne case the libel must be dismissed
Tie District Attorney argued that the Court bad de-
cdcd that there was substantial issue raised the
poadngs Of which The claimants had the affirmative,
and the want OF supporting which wonld drive them
out Of Court.
tOur. ruled that the issue as if-el on lnc eA-
ceptons wns not material 20 the merits, and that tax
inC their default on the question whether tie claimants
were sole owners or part owners, would lot DISMISS
them fom the case cutie the Government to act as
On default aud That the Government must therefore
proceed with It's evidence the merits. The posses
sion ~ the claimants Ola th0asaldth share was equally
important fnT "a that share was concerned, as II
they owned the whole.
The District Attorney then stated that they should
proceed th the trial ofthe issue on the exceptions the
prosecution taking the inltiaiiye.
IN H...rs .I.tfN W -IRE "a
Mr.. Evaris objected TO the admission Of evidence
on au immatcrial Issue.
Ire Court admitted It, withou. passing positively
upon The question
~. Evsrts then stated that there was an l'her Oh
lection which DC did not wish 70 take Oh this pfemi'
nary examination EXCEPT so FAR rs TO reserve 1t IN the
trial FOR the forfeiture. yz That the claimants should
not BE- compelled 10 testify the question Of forfeiture
Witness iesti1cs--My firm is John NJ. Forbes Co
Mr. Robert T. Forbes is not my partner except IN the
Meteor.
O. How much money d.d you pay for your interest in
the ship Question objected 10 and admitted. a. /
don't know.
O. Have you paid anything; A. have; my brother
has paid part. ard have paid part remember AZ
onc lime 7 paid 10000; owned that interest at the
me tie slip was seized, owred one half and Il. Il.
Forbes the other cant Say did not pay moro Tor the
one.haif. / cans remember what share IN the ship
go represented; paid this $4,000 at various
times toward the consi. lcton OF the snip; don't Know
that there were any other owners than my brother ard
myself several gentlemen had contributed money To III
out tho vessel and present her TO the Government but
tie fai Of Fort Fisher prevented that the ownership
OF the vessel vested by those parties IN my brother
and myself a. n matter Of couyenience l understood
tia. those parties had resultant interest N the Ship
mean by that, that the proceeds II any, Of the enter
irse were 20 be divided among them pro rata.
ST.. Eyaus produced and offered IN evidence the
register OF the vessel show that The Messrs. Forbes
ars the solo owners " the vessel which wa admitted.
Cross examined by NJ. EynTts--I DO Mt know Of any
written agreement between the other gentleman and
ms brother and myself IL understood that we my
brother and my'elf should send her where we liked.
and do what Gfrcspcctng her; but IN case of
sale tie amount received was 70 be- divided pro rata
after deductng al expenses among those interested
at one time wfer the vessel was under Government
charter the expenses cx'eedcd the receipts largely
AMI the parties crested were asked 70 subscribe
further arhts; some Subscribed and others refused
saving they Lad paid their original subscriptions and
cared 10 moro about =.
Redirect do nj think any one in NewYork knows
ln,thug further Gboui the ownership than what have
stated Il all The other parties interested had attempted
10 sell the vessel should have consulted my lawyer.
Kc-cross-examincd-At the time OF the seizure the
vessel was consigned "a VIM. +. Cary
The case was then adjourned 70 this morning At il
o'clock.
The Hon Daniel ) Dickinson United States Dis
trct.A ttorney and M Webster for the prosecution
Nj Eyars and Mt Choate opposed.