The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1867-04-18

amount of business transacted in the
Circuit Court yesterday.
The Grand Jury yesterday morning
inspected the County Jail, and re-
ported it in excellent condition in
general. One or two cells need Slight
repairs They complimented the
prosecuting attorney for, the Jealous
and impartial manner iu.swhich he
had discharged his dutyaa and received
in return his cordial thanks for their
sco-operation with him in the discharge
of his duties. They returned some
forty, indictments, chiefly for viola
tions of the liquor law, and adjourned
at noon. During the sitting of the
Grand Jury they have returned 175
bills, $50 of which were forsyiolations
of the liquor law in some of its
phases. The Grand Jury was lone of
the most able and competent that ever
sat I'M this county. 0 MraP. C. Decker
was clerk, and expedited the wofk Fof
the Grand jury BY the admirable
manner in which he kept the min
lutes, for which. he has received the
compliments of his associates. rs SO r.
James Adams entered a plea of
guilty to an. Indictment for larceny,
for stealing silver. plate, &C., from
JamessL Orr He will be sentenced
hereafter by the Court He expressed
desife that an aecomplice. who has
home in ST.. Louis, should be ar
rested, All the other prisoners now
in Jail against whom indictments were
found were arraigned, and each put
in plea of not guilty, and counsel.
was assigned to each. - The State
cases will be put through from this
time forward until the dock et is,
cleared .SAf - szevls9sa II =
Balthazar Mayer was fined $40 and
costs for selling liquor on Ieleetionsday..
Mary A. Gimbel was granted Il a
divorce from Peter Gimbel.. a.
5 The most important case disposed
of was that of Herman Levi VS.
Alex Darling This vas "a case Of
replevin, growing out of the attach
mentzof the stock of goods. belonging
to ! berdofer q Co. by the Sheriff for
the benefit of their creditors. Levi
claimed the, goods, by purchase, and
repleyined them. The defence set up
was fraud and sham sale to defraud
the creditors. Tried by. the Court,
and judgment rendered for the defend
ant. ashs -4s4 ..ssE ss3f1 81 $ a-.g,
Judge Parrett in rendering judg-'
ment, delivered an able and elaborate
decision He said "a !. It is true that
fraud will not be presumed, but must
be proved toexistlby afair prepon-
derance of the evidence. How this,
proof is to be made, and where sought,
may often be a perplexing question:
1t may be sought in vain in any one
phase Of the case, and yet may Turk
almost intangibly in the whole trans.
action. At least sach is the dicta
seemingly well founded in a case re-
ported from our own Supreme Court
in the Sixth Indiana. use d !
!, Speaking Of fraeds and its proof,
Chancellor Kent says: . A deduction
of fraud may be made from facts. in
cidents and circumstances which may
be trivial in themselves, but decisive
evidence in the given case Of a fraud
ulentaesigh.aAd IL e
} rfJudgeE p arrett- them reVieYed the
whole case in detail. The first notice
able case was thetelegraphic dies patch
from Oberdofer & Co., to the plain7
tiff to come down no previous la,
Outstanding or arrangements appearing.
to have existed. AS Ia credit9 II, he
could have been protected withoat
COMING. down The firm, Of Levi &
Co. were not consulted; that is, Levi
took the whole responsibility, and in
few moments closed contract for a
whole stock of goods, including ndtas
and accounts scattered over four diff
fereut States, to the amount of $2l 900,
alEtoksaSe al claim Of 800; made
no Investigation of the, solvency ofthe
claims. Having invested this large
amount in goods, notes and accounts,
he places them all under the care and
control of Lazarus We'll, who, as ap-
pears from the testimony, had but