The New York herald., 1869-06-29
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
~--~>~~~--~-~>~->~>~~~>>~~--
New York Merchants victi,nized-Aetions ~
Tort--snferest In such Cases--DscisTattons
of CO-Defcndants-Ilints to Counsel.
Albert =. lincoln, Piai,stiG Ia Error u.s. R"acs
B. C2afin and Othe's-In error 10 the Circuit Court
for the Northern district OF Illinois, Mr.. Justice Field
delivered the opinion OF the court. The bill OF eX
ceptions in this case is made up without any regard
to the rules in accordance with which such bills
should be framed. 1t Is little else than transcript
OF the evidence. oral and documentary given at the
trial. and ninetysix printed pages OF the re-
cord when the exceptions could have been presented
with greater clearness and precision in any fye OF
them. la It's preparation counsel seem to nave for
gotten that thus court does not pass in actions at
law upon the crediblllty or suficency OF tcstimOny
that these matters which are left to the jury and
for any errors in its action the remedy must DO
sought In the court below by motion for
new trial. A bill Of exceptions should only
present the rulings of the court upon matter OF
taw-as upon the admission or exclusion or evi-
dence-and should contain only so much Of the tes
tmOny, or such statement OF the proofs made or
offered, as may be necessary to explain the bearing
OF the rulings upon the issues involved. the facts
bill should state them briefly, the result OF the
testimony; II the facts are disputed 1t Will be sum-
tending to prove them. II defect in the proofs Is
the ground of the exception such defect should be
aan a 81 te er hs mon eer
minati0n OF any question raised ut the trial TO set
forth the entire evidence given, and the practice m
to this court bills made up in this way, filled With
superfu0us and irrelevant matter must he con-
demned. 1t only serves to throw increased labor
upon US and unnecessary expense upon parties
ii counsel will not heed the adm0nito0s
S US the judges Of the courts below to whom the bills
are presented, should withhold their signatures
nS ae Ss are not
The exceptions The action IN this case Is brought
to recover damages against the % Geenaaa t ser
The declaration alleges combination between the
defendants, pursuant to which one OF them pur-
chased goods to large amount, IN the city OF New
York OF different parties, and among others. OF the
plaintiffs, upon a false and fraudulent representa-
fendant disposed of them within q few days after
wards 10y auction, at less than their cost price and
proceeding being taken with intent to defraud che
yenders OF their properly I1e T1in ease rnns Uers ma
declaration dsclOses no cause OF action. In that
case certain creditors, whose demand was not due at
the tme brought action against their debtors, and
others Tor an alleged conspiracy to dispose OF the
property OF the debtors so as 20 hinder aud defeat
the creditors IN the collection OF their demand and
this court held that the action would not lie. Tue
decision proceeded upon the ground that creditors
at large have no such legal interest in the property
of their debtors as to enable them to interfere with
any disposition or it before the maturity OF eir de-
mands The creditors in that possessed no lien
non or interest in the property OF their debtors 10
impair clog In any respect the right Oi the latter
make any use or disposition OF u tney saw proper.
lated no existing right Of the creditors and conse-
quently furnished them no ground OF action. the
case at bar is not brought upon the allegation that
the defendants have fraudulently disposed oil their
own property, but that they have ira,duiently OBJ
piaintiifs. 1t proceeds upon the theory that
the title to the goods never passed TO tle
s oa, Shev Mepe OBTAINED By ase and
fraudulent representations. That such representa-.
tons were made by the defendant Mieham ana
that by means OF them the goods were obtained,
was not seriously disputed ut the trial Ihe prlnci-
pal controversy turned upon the connection oi tne
defendant, Lincoln, with the fraudulent acts OF Mile
haul Tue declaration alleges that the fraud was a
matter of prearrangemcnt between them, aud their
vosss Wss essential to recovery against ncoln but
Court held tnat it was sufilcient TO snow .nas as
W sSennent particpasio IN the
fraud and ITS fruits was as effective to charge hiln as
preconcert and combination Ior ils execution. IN
thus holding we perceive no error. Inc character
OF the transaction not changed, whether !incoln
was an original party IN Its inception or became
the the plantfs aiected BY the precise day at which he
became co.conspirator with Mieham. Il, knowing
ssrs ss ysus is M he chaseabc with All IT'S
consequences, and could be treated aud pursued '-
an original party. Every act Of each IN furtherauee
OF tue common design was in contemplation Of
law the act OF both. On the trial declarations OF
each made in the absence OF the other, were allowed
to 90 TO the jury. They related not merely to the
transaction Which is the subject OF inquiry ia this
with other parties. The evidence was not incompe-
tent or irrelevant, as contended ny cQpnsel Where
fraud In the purchase sale Of property Is in issue
evidence OF oher frauds Of like character committed
Dy the same parties, at or near the same time. IL
admissible Its admissiblty II placed on ths ground
that when transactlons OF similar character. exc.
cuted by the same parties. are closely connected ia
time, the inference s reasonable that they proceed
from the same motive. The principle IL asserted in
Cary vs. Hotaiing Il Hill, 3l7. and Ia sustained bg
numerous authorities. The case Of fraud, as there
stated is among the few exceptions 10 the general
rule that other offences Of tue accused are not
relevant to establish the main charge. tSee
also Hall Nayler, Is, N. Y, Sss, and Castle
vs. Ballard, % How, lI2.) Tue deciara-
tions of each defendant are evidence against
two were engaged at the time IN the furtherance V
common design to defraud the plaintiffs. The
Court placed their admissabtY on that ground. and
instructed the jury that II they were made after the
consunmation OF the enterprise they should not 20
regarded. Is possible that the Court erred In ITS
charge upon the subject OF damages, In directing
the Jury to add interest to the value Of the g00ds.
Interest Is not allowable as q matter OF law, except
in cases OF contract or the unlawful detention or
money. In cases Of tort its allowance as damages
rests in the discretion OF the jury. But the error
II be one, cannot be taken advantage OF by tue de-
fendants for they took no exception to the charge
that ground. The charge Is Inserted at length IA
the bill contrary to the proper practice, AZ repeat
press rule this court II embraces several distinct
and q general exception In sueh case
cannot avail the party II any Que OF them IL correct
Judgment affirmed.
Or. KING AND THE GREEK GOVERNMENT.