New-York tribune., 1869-05-21
AN OIL AND MINING spEcuLATOR.

Ed,rGrd II, Arnold agt. John w. Robertson.-
This was aclion IN the Court OF Common Pleas Iral
Term brought by Arnold to make Robertson responsive
for a ipss OF money loaned to Charles G.. Patterson
through an alleged neglect OF duty by the defendant
Robertson rs an attorney, in not filing chatel mort
,,ge given by Patterson Patterson at the time
mite prominent man 10 oil aud mlhug tpcculhUohS
and said to be then living in rather luxurious manner
Arnold was the engineer in " these companies and
wanting money for the operations nj the nne came on
and saw Patterson, who induced him 10 lend him Ger
tiGcate Of stock OF 5000 shates nI e o @
Lead Mining Company at the estimated value ot S39O
to be returned IN sixty days, for which bond ana
chaitc mUrgag on PaltrrSohs pIopeIly' ~ thc r ~
Denis Hotel where he was living, was To be given IN,
poprrty included pictures Tor one OF which Patterson had
paid 81 900 aud for another $3.50 decautes Tor wen ne
had paid $50 pair silver which he lhe valued AZ SLOW
The plaintiff claims that he employed the heichuhnt VIZ
as well as himself was friend OF Patterson, 10 inquire
the bond aud mortgage, and 10 me INC inorleagc;
The bond and chaitcl mortgage Was eAccu,tu
Nov o. 1864 aud the plaintth says the
defendant told him that the mortgage was hrd. The
mortgage was not ned I'll Dec. p. ana previous
10 that another chatter mortehgo LOT sl, lh WI @ wy
18Th Of December, and covering the same proprrV Was
fled, thus obtaining priority Inc pinlhtH iuI'arr
says that he was tlcn advised y @ lnI VA va,
mort gage was OF no use ana ADVISED w S'siy a'I
10 Patterson. aud that hC did accordingly satisfy taxing
tcrest in a mine II was claimed that in fact Patterson
had then paid of the $1,000 mortgage, ana had sals
faction OF t ~ his possession but not recorded or Aho"H
The defendant whilc admitting that he drew the bond
aud mortgage denied that r had ever been cnpoed by
the plaintiff as his attorney requested by him "a
file the mortgage. aud claimed that he had acted through
him the mortgage. but that Patterson had given IL I,
him on the 23d of Decemhcr when he had n ouce filed H
IL claimed that Arnold had sacrificed his claim by
styling the mortgage and that M fact the murtgLEcd
property enough To have PAID both mortgages and
that the stock worthless and therefore no los
occurred To plaintiff
MIR. Patterson gave evidence confirming tho defend
ants statements iu all puuts but the plaintiff produced
Impeachment ~ his testimony the fact that iu 1902 b,
had been convicted 0f cuue la icunsylvauia, aud
sentenced Imprisonment bat had been pardoned aud
the evidence ~ several yruu- ipcHchng MS character
Mr.. Mgatc iu answer To- the legal points raised 10y the
Ggf al Al
denying the value Of the stock ana tie satisfaction O
the mortgage being procured by fraud was uulhty.
Marsh couteudcd that Mr. Patterson was the object
OF bitter personal persecution aud that his conviction
aud the testimony against his character was the rrslt o
tai. pcrsccutiuu aud that hs testimony worthy o
fun belief, and fully cNonerated the defendant.
Court left the tu the jury Of NcraCly
aud In the uf h- charge commented on hr PAtcr
sons convicted u lst2 pardouct 10 l-J hNiug l
luxury with pictures, glass, hur-cs and SILVER n 1894
spccuuiEg m stocks and then going through bankruptcy
with $4,000 uf drbi, aud uo assets ono oi the signs o
the times Tho Jury directed 10 bring in sealed
verdict