New-York tribune., 1869-06-22
THE COURTS.
DEALERS AND DEALING IN MINING STOCKS.
Wm. n. Van Wick, committee of Jacob South


Wn. n. Van Wyck, committee of Jacob South
ert agt Gcoy0e Bdche-supreme Court, Chambers-Car
dozo Justice This Is the civil eide OF the criminal pro-
ceedng which has dismissed by Justice Dodge The
complaint sets that Bache at different times in tho
Summer OF 1857 forged and obtained money, forged
cSecE Tor 81 00 forged cheek for $50 o. aud forged
note for 800 drawn In the name OF jacob sOuhefMhO
i'm March following was declared a lunatic. Tho cTlm
mi Sompiant was supported solely ON the adavlt OF
W. Newton who swore that he saw MT Baghe wllte the
700 check 20 his order and sign u with nit south
arts name; that Mr Bacbe then Endorsed u
over TO him, lSewton9 and Newton took lt
and presented It at the bank and got the money on IT,
Justice bod ge rejected the criminal complaint on New
toms bad character. AFFIDAVIT OF tho same man aud
the complaint IN the case were the basis OF ho order oi
arrest The defendant now moves 20 yacdte the order
OF arrest HIS ownadayit relates avs csse ana rs w re-
py IN measure 70 asecoh9 cobpan oi the oVh,tee
charging him with dcfrauding SOuthert by selling him
S Of 4yS @ Se T. G9SS G SST oS a hof
Lis Acquaintance with Southert commenced ny MT New
ton with whom he had but little acquaintance, coming 10
Inn aud telling him that for commission he would put
| him In relation To "A who was great on speculation,
and 10 whom he could sell his copper mine stock that
his telling him he would make II right, Newton
told him OF southert and where he could ggneray bc
fOunda drug store 40 the corner Of Nafick and Franklin
ss that he, Bache, called on MIN ana Introduced the
copper mine stock 20 his notice, sOuthef az Tue same
time telling him Of various other specuations he had
made that defendant made no representations himself
but gave him the prospectus OF the company mai south
ert did not buy then but as he was Informed went 10
members the company and even 20 Plainneld where
the mine was situated 10 make INQUIRIES ad nhhly LOOK
his Judgment expressed M the receipt given
for which pay e % per SHARE but there
was quite question as 20 the terms OF payment; Bache
various times At from soc. 70 t2 but 20 get the com.
plete 5000 shares he had 10 purchase some moro
stock at 81 that the terms Of payment were somewhat
debated, souhert time agreeing 10 pay $500 In
cash. the balance IN notes at one, two and three months
be got through on his property paid but $50 aud gave
him demand note for 5000 that after ono or two in
tervews sonthert said he IN funds and gave him
chesk the that The day after hc got this
check Newton came INTO The once demanding rather
buseringy his commission; that Bache said he would
make It right but he had only got sO as yet aud after
lpcI f0rh b.iu
10 was blurred, and advised SowtOn TO get new
that Baehe took the note up the drugstore saw Ar
sOuthert then drew another check, writing 10,
eS m Sn a 5 as 10 Inc oSer note and 0 chee
their history Is this His brother having farm In West
chester on which was mortgage for $40, Newton went
10 hu and uggeted that lao could got purchaser OF IL
FOR 5Og thar Newton did effect sale to sOuhert for
$500, third party beng mterposed between Baohe and
southcr aud received the consideration In various notes
OF which he Kept $500 as commissions &C. and gave tho
other notcs, two Of which were sl5O. to deendants
brother from whom they 10 the defendant; that
Of these notes was paid, and the OTHER protested;
suit for 81 Cgl 5O that subsequently Mr. Van Wyck
70 him and INSISTED on hs giving up az the notes ne then
held, and that his resistance Mr.. Van Wyck told him
that Mr Southert had disposed OF All his property, aud
II he did Weld commission Ofuuacy would be Issued,
aud ne would get INTO tIouDe ana get notng WhlcH s
denied to the latter part by Mr. Van Wyck that after
time and after the issuing OF the commission OF
lunacy he MP the notes he then held SlO50o aud
took back receipt expressing that this was surrender
by souhert to hm II his statement as To ms having no
property correct he says that nothing more was
brothers farm commenced foreclosure when Mr.. Van
Wyek insisted on his stopping that proceeding and that
on his refusing these proceedings were commenced:
Two anidaylts appended 10 the effect that
cent conversation former Interval Mr. SOuther
med all the statements Of the above affidavit, referring
to facts within hls personal knowledge.
There Is affidavit OF the Cashier of the Chatham
he believes the signatures genuine Thore
afdayts show that Newton is companion OF thieves
aud planned the LoVejoy robbery aud ls unworthy Of
credit
On the other side plaintiff produces afdavts OF sew.
oia. experts who are satisfied that the signatures are
xyln
POd the defendant shares AZ 25 cents for the
purpose or resale at ~ gents 70 southert, undof
Bache's representations ROgcss nnN lln9 ac0WleAg.
OATH that he received note OF SOutheTts $50
for payment for the whole $1,000 paying him back after
discount $780, The adayits OF two persons, who state
that southert denied tho authenticity OF the sgnaturos
Mr. Van Wyck also denies the truth Of the statement as
TO his pressure the defendant or that there any
know OF these three notes till after the surrender Of the
$4,000 OF notes 10 him. th0y being In the possession OF
MI 50utharts former attorneys Dir. Sheffield also
members the visit OF Bache when nc CLAIMS have got
the 5000 check that had IL been given he thinks lie
would have known IT, but does not The o. 800 note was
IL IA sworn Ia the handwriting OF Bache.
There were some other anidayits OF gentlemen
quainted with Mr. SOuthert who testified that they did
not after careful examination, believe the signatures 10
these cheeks 70 be his.
Mr. Van Wyck, IN summing up for the plaintiff after
auding 10 his associates, Messrs Freeman and Chatfeld
better rted 70 contend with tho defendants COUNSEL
only question before tho Court not to the trans
actions Copper Mining stock but whether the defend
Bache would not be discharged from arrest on a mere
preponderance OF aidavts, but he was willing 10
greater burden 10 show that the preponderance OF tes
Mr. Justice CnrdOzo said that there was technical
rule that where the cause OF action authorized
the Court would not try tho action aiidayits and
fed practically by the rule that where it Appeared
the evidence that siury would hardly give verdict the