The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1869-02-17
Alledged Gigantic Frauds.
THE CASE OF A. s. MANSFIELD DECISION OF
THE UNITED STATES COURT AS 10 THE
r. E. LEE.


ted almost as much attention as any ever
brought in this State, was on Wednesday
disposed of, so far as the r. L. LEE is con
cerned, by decree of the United States
Court. We republish below, in order to
meet the demand, the bill of complaint and
the decree Of what, from the amount OIL
money and the number Of first class steam,
boats involved, will long be remembered
as one of the curiosities of litigation:
On or about the 23d of January, 1867,
by an instrument in writing, signed by A.
S. Mansfield and your orator, and subse.
qucatly by Peter Butler, Mansfield con.
tracted to sell among other things, to your
orator, one half Of the steamboat r. E. LEE
one-third of the steamboat Magenta, and
one-third of the steamboat Grey Eagle, fol-
the sum Of 100000, which were paid Mans
field by the allowance of q credit for that
amount upon large Indebtedness of said
Mansfield and Butler, in solido, to your
orator, exceeding the sum of 100000
BY Aforesaid instrument, Mansfield con-
tracted to place the title papers for such
interest in said steamboats, in the name OF
j. w. Catheart for the benefit of your ora
tor. That Mansfield, at the aforesaid date
of said instrument, informed your orator
that the R. E. LEE was enrolled at the Gus
tom House OF New Orleans in sole name
of said John w. Cannon, but that the said
Cannon held the one undivided half as
agent for Mansfield. That said Cannon
rendered account of expenses and earnings
of said steamboat R. E. LEE to raid Mans
field, and recognizes said Mansfield as one
half owner. That said Mansfield refuses
to comply with terms of written instrument
Aforesaid. That for the purpose of defraud-
ing your orator of ownership, said Mans
field prevailed upon said Cannon to
execute and deliver to him three notes
Of 100000 each, payable to the order of
said Cannon. But that Mansfield falsely
and fraudulently pretends that said notes
we're given by Cannon in payment for his
interest in said steamer, aud that said
Cannon pretends that he cannot be COM
PEELED to deliver said half of the r. +. LEE
either to Mansfield or your orator until
said notes are cancelled or delivered up to
him, said Cannon; that said Cannon pre-
tends that, at the time he executed said
notes, he had no notice, and was not ad-
yertised of the sale of said half of r. E.
LEE; that Mansfield fraudulently obtained
said notes from said Cannon, flor the pur-
pose Of defeating your orators right to
half of said steamboat r. E. LEE, that said
Mansfield refuses to surrender said notes
to your orator or to said Cannon, unless
he is paid large sum in ready money in
addition to the price already paid for said
one-half of r. E. LEE, and unless your or
ator will also reiinquish large amouut of
his remaining demand and debt against
said Mansfield & Butler. That your ora
tor fears said Mansfield may place said
notes beyond the jurisdiction of the court
wherefore he prays for the appointment of
receiver, who shall seize and hold said
notes, subject to the order of the court in
the premises.
Your orator prays that the said Mans
held and Cannon be decreed to convey to
your orator o formal title to one undivided
half of the said steamboat r. Z. LEE, her
furniture, tackle ETC., and that the Mans
field be restrained by writ of injunction
from parting with or negotiating said notes
etc. Race, Foster & Z. T. Merrick, sol
icitors.
The separate answer of John w. Can
non alleges: That he had no knowledge Of
the dealings of his co-defendant and COM
plainant and Peter Butler; that he does
not continue to render an account of earn
ings and expenses to Mansfield, that the
said boat cost about $4,000, that Mans
field contributed only 100000, for which
the three notes Aforesaid were executed and
given by respondent, that it was contem-
plated that said Mansfield would furnish
one-half of the means necessary for build
ing said boat; that he failed to do so; that
during the fall of 1867 disagreement oc-
Cured between respondent and Mansfield
concerning the management and business
OF said boat, the result Of which was, that
in November, 1867 it was agreed between
them that respondent would return to
Mansfield the s 6O,O0O contributed as afore-
said, upon time, and that respondent should
become the real owner, etc., r. g. II.
Alarr, solicitors.
The following is the decree rendered
The cause having been this day submit
ted to the court on the bill, answer and
pleadings, and the offer of complainant to
surrender to the defendant, John w. Can
non. the three promisory notes in the bill
and answer referred to and described and
acceptance of the same by said defendant
and the consent of the parties appearing of
record, and the court having duly consid-
cred the same, and further, considering
that the legal title to the steamboat r. E.
LEE is now and has been continuously from