The New York herald., 1870-07-23
SCOTLAND.
The Brothers Seiize, OF New York, In COnrt-
Charges and Complaints Against Them
Iisfnr Dffl ltnaa


The Brothers Sciize, OF New York. In Conrt-
Changes and Complaints Against Them
Legal History of tho Case.
from the North British Daily Mall GLASGOW July :. I
Yesterday the brothers Charles and Frank Seitze,
who, as explained In the DaaV Mau OF the day be.
fore, where apprehended upon q rugR warrant
granted by Sheriff Clark, on charge OF fraudulent
bankruptcy, were brought up for examination be-
The petition sets forth that the Brothers Seitze
purchased, from variety OF New York firms, goods
amounting in value TO 500 692 50, Gl3 865 lOs 3d.
sterling; that Siegmund Spingarn had acquired
right to the whole OF these debts, and to
raise an action for payment; that the Brothers
Settle had absconded from New York on or about
7th June, 1870, taking with them whatever property
they had; that 1t was believed they went to Mia.
CARA Fails ana thence TO Toronto: thence 10
Quebec, and from that port sailed on the 18th June
in the steamship Ottawa. trading between Quebec
and Glasgow; that, after leaving New York. they as
sumed other names at each OF these places; tfat
Charles SetZe assumed, and he took passage In the
name Of Philip Wallig and Frank A. Settle in that
OF George Kent; that an order OF arrest was Oh
tanned the 9th OF June, 1870 by various American
creditors from Judge OF the Supreme Court at New
York. out the SeItzes could not be found, although
Il careful search was made for them In the above
mentioned places; that before leaving New York,
besides receiving the goods described IN the petition.
they had, by worthless checks, defrauded number
OF brokers OF government bonds that they arrived
in Glasgow on or about the I'd OF July, 1870; that
they were natives OF Darmstadt, III Germany; that
they purchased or converted the money obtained by
them into bills Of exchange on various bankers In
Germany, and that II was believed that they were
about to leave this Kingdom. warrant was there.
fore cravcd to have them apprehended and detained
as in me6ftatiOrae JugG until they should find
ton.
Mr. W. M. Wilson, for the respondents, objected
In Dt'e nI that the petitioner had not set forth In
the instance the title In which he sued; 2 that the
petitioner had not set forth and deduced sufficient
title any title to IN OTelt0 OF the petition and
had no titles @ that this action could not have been
brought unless an assignation existed and If it ex
listed it ought to have been produced; a. that the
petitioner, being foreigner suing with the concur
AFa .1afn anil hux-, AZ.
within the territory or she shers jurisdiction or OF
the Scotch court, this mandatory should have made
an oath of credulity, and ~ that the respondents
are not resident IN Lancashire or legally within the
jurisdiction OF the court inasmuci, rs they were ap
pretended at the tail oil the bank Illegally by the
petitioner and certain criminal officers ana f0rcibly
brought within your l0rdahip's territory, hut DIS
charged by the police magistrate OF Glasgow hav-
were apprehended upon the present warrant before
they had an opportunity OF leaving the police build
Mr. Gordon Smith, on the part OF the petitioners,
maintained that the instance contained all that was
necessary in an application Of this nature II was
unnecessary deduce q title in the instance, and
the objection that there was none was irrelevant.
With regard to the second and third objections MIR.
Smith held that he had set forth III the body OF the
petition his right to the debt. He alleged that he
had acquired the various debts described in tile peti.
ton, and that was all that was needful. lie further
quoted authorities TO show that debt OF this nature
In America did not require any written title, but
could sbe proved by parole evidence. Therefore. II
a written title was not necessary II was obviously
out the question to ask him to produce With
regard TO the fourth objection, that the petitioner
being foreigner suing with concurrence Of man.
datory, required that the mandatory shonld make
an oath Of credulity Mr. Smith maintained that that
only necessary where the oath OF foreigner was
emitted in foreign country Where foreigner
came here and made the oath himself and
was interrogated by the Court as 70 the
grounds of has beliel with respect 70 the per-
son being IN JUgp, the mandatory did not re-
qure TO make any oath. AS TO the fifth objection,
relating to the proceedings before the Police Court,
Mr. Smith maintained they had no relevancy in thus
ftnn Hha m vyff
the apprehension OF the respondents after being dis
charged by the police magistrate were denied. AZ
the time they were apprehended under the .fngG
they were free from custody or control OF any sort
He contended therefore, that this objection also fell
10 he dismissed.
shenfr Dickson said that The matter had been NJ
ready before this court; for Mr Selars the clerk Of
the court had just informed him OF case I'm which
a man was arrested In England under a 0tedaattont
ratve there; but 1t still held by sheriff Bell that
In that instance the petition FOR Deditotione Jg0
should 60 on, for II any wrong was done in England
the remedy lay there. Tho learned Sheriff considered
that the Eve objections came within the same prn.
cipe. He therefore reDelled all the objections 3s
preliminary reservng TO himself TO deal according
to his discretion with all these matters rs affecting
the merits after parties had been examined.
Mr.. Wilson appealed against the decision to the
Sheriff Principal and an order was given for the In
iertm detention OF the respondents till the appeal
was disposed OF.
Considering the nature OF the petition Sheriff Bel
took up the appeal at once. Messrs Wilson and
Gordon addressed his Lordship upon the objections
OF tne Respondents.
Charles Settle was then examined by Mr. Smith
Were you o tobacco merchant in New York for some
years prior TO June lastf Understanding that
ana threatened with criminal proceedings In respect
10 the matter involved in the present petition de
cline to answer and declare that do by the ad
vice OF Mr. Wilson, procurat0r OF this court. Die
you In the month OF June last leave New York hur
riedy and suddenly The respondent was about Il
reply TO the question prompted by Mr.. Wilson, wheI
Mr.. Smith said that when q party was charged
| under petition as being neditdtole Jugg 1t wai
usual to allow the party 70 answer the questions
without being prompted by his agent as to what h'
| should say
/ Examination continued-Dld you IN the month o
!, June last leave New York hurrledy and suddenly
decliae 10 answer Tor tue reason above stated