The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-03-14

ing and deverything bore a business appearance.
The case Of the Commonwealth vs. Asop,
yesterday and Tuesday the case that the Com
monwealth presented TO the jury.
It was from Philip Rice that the money was
alleged to have been fraudulently obtained aud
not James IL. Thornley,, as was before reported
through mistake. Mr.. Thornley, was the hrst
q tntleman whom the defendants spoke to con
C,erning the land; no Mr.. Rice was afterwards In
After offering in evidence the deeds OF the
lands, the searches Of the record and the eNem-
plifcation of survey Of the patents Of the
lands, in contradiction to the statement that
the defendants owned and held good and
marketable title TO the tract of land in ques-
tion, and to the statement of the land being In
West Virginia, the Commonwealth closed.
The defense offered no evidence, but went TO
the jury on the weakness OF the Common
testimony of the prosecutor, Joseph l.. Caven,
who was conveyancer employed in the sale OF
the land, and who testified that when Mr. Price
called upon him to ask his judgment as an
expert concerning the title OF the defendants
in the land, he made thorough search into
the matter, and upon the brief given him by
defendants, told him that he thought IL good.
Now, If Mr.. Rice had been deceived at all, was
he not deceived by Caven himself and not by
the defendants? When the defendants made
the contract with Mr.. Caven as a conveyancer,
he did not say that the title was good, or that
it was not good; but that they had done nothing
since they have had 1t to impair it; and upon
this he, Mr.. Caven, as an expert conveyancer,
took the deed and contract.
The statement that parties In New York were
negotiating for the purchase OF this land for oil
working, and were likely to buy IL at an early
day, was not contradicted, and upon this state
ment Mr.. Caven was quick TO take the contract.
Alderman McCahen testified that he had gone
down there (where?) and had been unable to
find the tract of land. lie may have gone to
the right tract, and he may have gone to the
wrong one. But whether he found 1t or not, is
nothing in this case. The bill OF Indictment
says the land Is in Kanawha county, West Vir-
ginia, but is not owned by the defendants; and
as to the title of the land, several experts seve
raj highly respectable lawyers, and a convey
ancer, had been deceived in it. if it were not
good; and might not the defendants also be de-
ceived in II? They said, if it were bad, they
were sorely deceived.
The defendants had given their judgment
notes for the amount of the purchase money,
so far as they were able, repaid the complain
ants their money. This does not look like
FRAUDULENT intentions or actions. 1t looks fair
and honorable. In civil court, not one cent
The purchasers had bought the land during
the oil mania and held it until the market
Then, while the market was breaking, and
no one could be induced to buy these lands,
they kick up row about the title, and turned
to these defendants for their money, like the
child who eats his cake and then cries for his
penny.
AS 10 the title, the first in time is first in
right, that is, where a man depends for his pro-
perty upon written deed. And in order to
prove the first title bad, an outstanding, good
title must be shown in some one else, not an
Records from the state of Virginia, OF the sale
OF this land for taxes, was given in evidence by
title of the defendants, and no one knows that
these taxes were not paid. Also, the lands were
said to be, not in Kanawha county, West Vir-
ginia, as stated by defendants, but in Fayette
county, Kentucky. But Fayette county, Ken
lucky, is nearly in the centre OF the State and
it is a geographical i'm possibility that kanawha
county, West Virginia, could extend 800 or 600
| miles into the State Of Kentucky, So argued
| the defense. The case is vet unconcluded.