The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-15
GIVE HER A VOTE.

singular Transaction IF n Smart Wonan-
she Hoodwinks Lawyers and Real Estate
Agcnis-A Good Member Tor "A Leg sluGive
Committee Oat OF a Job.
Some extraordinary Developments, tending in o
remarkable degree TO sustain the claims OF the
weaker and gentler and very modest sex to vote at
the polls, 10 election returns, &c. came to
light yesterday before Judge ftfian and jury, IN
the Superior court the trial OF the case OF Albert
Journey against the Mechanics National Bank.
TINS was an action to recover from the bank the
amount OF two checks, one FOR $1,000 and
the otner for $1,000, drawn by plaintiff TO
the credit of Mary E. Ban, and alleged TO have
been paid on forged endorsement The circum-
stances Of the case are peculiarly novel ia their
character and were rs iollowsln the fall OF 1868
lady entered the office OF tue pailtiif, then real
estate agent in Zine street. In this city, and stated
that sac was The owner OF house and several lots
on staten ls,and. which she minuiely described and
desired TO dispose OF, giving her name as Mary f.
Bull, Of Hartloro Conn. The palnun maze the
necessary inquiry and discovered mat the owner OF
the property was Mary Il. Buil, OF Hartford,
Conn., and be immediately placed the property Ia
WOULD LIKE TO BORROW rALrnY THOUSAND.
The week following the same lady called at the
office In reference 10 the safe, stating That she was
about TO pay visit TO New Haven Tor several weeks
aud could oe there addressed IN relation to the
matter. she, NJ the same time, SAID mat u tnere
was any delay IN making tue sale, she desired 10
oman n loan OF ST OJJ secured by bond and mort
gage. Tne plalnlI communicated WITH her at New
haven, anu tue LADY presented herself a. the once
OF Peek Gardner lawyers OF That city, bearing the
letter OF tue plaintiff. stating That ne was her agent
Tor me disposal Of ner property IN new York, and
tnat she desired them 10 communicate WITH him ip
| relation TO the SUBJECT
| THg LOAN SECURED.
The loan OF the 81 900 was ou.alned by the plain
| tiff. mortgage drawn iot tnat amount Transmitted
| 10 Peek Il Gardner, at New Haven; executed 10y
| Miss Mary h. Bun; returned TO Peck N Gardner,
and on their endorsements oasned In the City Bank
OF New Haven aud paid over to the party mar
ing the mortgage. Two weeks subsequently tue
sue OF tine property was e1acted to another party,
subject to the mortgage; deed prepared and cx-
ecutei IN the stms form as tie mortgages; the
amount OF Tic purchase money Isl, 2oy) transmitted
by cnecK, as was the previous amount. cashed at
the same bank and paid over to the party making
the deed. ms cneck was forwarded through The
parS Bank and by the defendants VINO held the de.
posits OF the plantin
SUR Al LAW GROWS OUT OF 1T.
Almost year alter the property wns icsold by
the purchaser unucr tins Decd anu Sc Ircut n h.
tite It was discovered tnat another deea was sand
ing on record also executed by Mary Il. Bull. Upon
tria which took place IA the CircIIt Court IN this
city IT was determined that the Mary H. Bull exc
owner "a the property, but had personated the real
owner lbe painLiH now sues to recover his money
IRON the BANK on the ground that they had paid Ii
ON iorged endorsement.
DelendantS resist~Ine claim on the ground that
thc check Was endorsed by the party with whom the
plaihtiu had negotiated, and whom he had
Intended 70 deliver ~ and make 1t pay able and that
the TACT that sne had deceived hun as TO ner real
Character was not reason In law why he should
recover oacN the amount rs paid.
Inc case was not concluded at the adjournment
OF the court yesterday afternoon.