The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-11-14
SUPERIOR COuay-Talal rERm-pAaT |.
An foil Speculati0n-Verlict for Defendant.
Before Judge McCunn

An f1n OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES for Defendant.
Before Judge McCunn.
El5Gh c. Schenck ct al Us. John J. AOyrfs--Plain-
tbs snel for the recovery Of s6o0o the value OF 1000
shar Is O. the New York ana Pennsylvania OIL Com
PAM sold and delivered in 1854 The plaintiffs
e.a med that they were induced make the invest.
mcnt through false and fraudulent representations
Of the defendant. The parties had had business re.
alons together for several years previously, but
this latter enterprise failure to both parties
Both parties unquestionaby felt very sorry for hav
Ing engaged In the oil business. but the plaintiffs
theory was that the defendant was OF the origi-
nators oil the whole concern and knew It was bogus
TINS, OF course the defendant denied. At the close
of tie case Judge McCunn decided TO take the case
from the jury aud direct verdict for the defendant
en- the following grounds:-The first question IL at
presents Itself IN this case Is, whether there were
iase statements made by defendant plaintifrs to
induce them 10 part with their money and whether
defendant was benefited by such false statements.
F.rst-Ihere Is no dispute ABOUT the organization
Seooad-lhefe is no dispute about the ownership
OF the land Of the company nor Is there any dispute
about the company's owning ave engines instead Of
twenty eight, nor about there beng some wells
sunk, so that the only fraud defendant could be
gllt o. was IN saying the company had more en-.
gines than they actually had and more wells sunk
IMAM We're sunk, and II is upon these two prOposi-
lions that the jury must pass, II At all.
. MT. MOTIFS says he made no such representations.
lie says II was time OF great speculation and that
plaintiffs were as anxious as he was to embark In
sucn enterprises 1t is also admitted That MT Nor
ria received no pecuniary benefit from the transac
ton. rhe stock which Holly set apart for him was
se apart months after the representations made to
Plaintiffs. Now. shall hold that II Morris did tell
e. and the result OF that lie or the intention OF Nor
3 NJ the time was not 10 beneht himself plaintiffs
= nnoi recover. Again, the evidence and the plead
\ g IN thus case show that several weeks elapsed
n Da the time that plaintiffs subscribed for the
10 ck before they paid the money and hold
Ia 1t was the duty OF the plaintiffs to
nv stlgate the true condition OF the company and
so a'tain whether the property described by
efe ldant, and their not doing their negligence
n 10 Il respect will prevent Them from recovering;
Of Ter words. there can In such case a. this be
on1 1butina neg igence. Another reason that would
ut them from recovering IL that, according to
heir. own showing, after they had discovered these
lege untruths Of Norris they still continued to be
part and parcel Ct the company and were among
Il dir Gtofs. Now, hold that their doing num-
Years after they learned these facts precludes
their re covery; and lastly, three years and half
having elapsed before this suit was commenced and
their ed Or.s 10 settle with Morris in the meantime
do not 'ecommend them TO the court Under all
these cir cunstances and IN consideration OF the fact
that plai utfs mace defendant their witness and al
his esu 2ony taken in connection with other proofs
goes cont usveiy TO estaoi ish a scheme In which all
are equal y to blame must direct verdict for de-
PENDANT, ne eAceptons 70 De heard IN the drst In
stance AZ General Term.