, 1870-05-27
THE LAW COURTS.
upreme Court Dectsion-The
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
bcr saloon Casc.
School Land Appraisal-The Jansen
Oaks Shooting Affair."
Sour pickles
Sentence Day In the Recorders
Co1r1-E4 Prisoners
D&sPosed Of.
The Great Kennedy Contested VIII Case
in Kendall County.
Supreme Court.
FRAUDULENT 9ALk.


Leonard Rothgerber ct al. :. Thomas Cough
Appeal from the Superior Coun Of Chicago. 0pln-
ion bY Walker, Justice. This was an action Of
frespass de bonis ax,ortais brought By appellee in
the Superior Court Of Chicago against appellants
5or leVying witt Of attachment on property
claimed by appellee. Appellants claimed that the
goods were the property OF one BoEhaW. who WIS
Indebted 10 Livingston, for whom Kothgcrber was
Rcting as agent, In considerable SUN OF moneT;
Shat he caused writ Of to be issued and
levied upon the goods IS thu property Of Boshaw.
Appellee, On the other hald, claimed TO nave pur
CHASED 1ne goods Of Doshaw before the wit issued
against Dolsbaw, and before tae lew was made,
2ni 70 have hecn in possession Of the property.
Appellant insisted TUT the sole was fraudulent,
and nude to hlndcr 2ud delay credtoss- The case
was s11ed before . jury. who found verdict In
3aror of plannHt and defendants entered motion
for d new Trial, which The CouFt overtuled, and
rendered judgment On the verdict, and defendants
bring the Case TO this court ol appeal, and seek
reversal.
is nIst insisted that The verdict is unsupported
BY the evidence. The 1nMn facts in the case are:
That boshaw owned saloon and was engaged in
che sale Of Iquots that he was at the time or the
sale, indebted to different parties IN the sun OF
about 600; that the Indebtedness TO Livingston
NAs balance OF IN account for liquors purchased
~ nm There seems 70 have been NO inventory
o. ,hs secs at q prior To- The sae a1d bolshaw
alter as before The sale, md the articles OF agree
ment that were executed at the time provided
&aal Bolsuaw should have power to purchase ali
Necessary articles, to cturoJs pay, and discharge
employees, aud this was to Continue for one year
sold was claimed TO he worth 81 900 OF ka 000 more
than he received. and he at n.st asked 5000 for
the stuck He does not pretend that he ever Of
savs he does not remember his name. He, too.
only Chains To have received $4,000 in hand. He
TOOK notes running from s!x to eighteen months,
1h1 without security.
II this tIauAac1!on were not conceived and exc
cuted ln fraud Of creditors, 1t has many s:E0ng
EhR4f largely In debt haYCOH Hhi1[tr
to I.ay- His creditors were pressing him, md he
wa not alle to meet their urgent demands for
1efs than he at INST asked; receives but sa,oo9 in
hand: the balance he a1rees to receive In payments
o. s1A, twelve, and eighteen months: taxes notes
eus sssur,tg: e e 1e es'saSs does a tsis Is x ws
cut asne otea az It, oee p" Ind a
casually taking down the items on piece Of na-
pcz. Nor did he make any arrangement for the
appropriation OF the money that was to he Rubse-
quently received to their payment These clrcum-
s1ancea iea7e scarcely any doubt on our minds
that II RHS the intention OF BptshaE TO defl2ud
his creditors by making this sale. .
II being necessary, however, that the purchaser
Should also have been aware of tue fraudulent In
tcntiou Of the vendor, and 10 participate In that
design TO render the sale void, 1t Is necessary to
examine tile evidence to ascertain whether appel-
lee is chasgeahfe with the fraud intended by Bol-
Rhsw.
That he, without experience IN the business,
should bc willing, IN coed faith, to make large
apnfchase on such lazard, secns aimpss inc1ed+
bic. He could have formed no correct judgment
6sfe the Fa11e Of the property by the very super
nCiA examination he made. He took no inven-
toy to learn the val0e u the property nor do we
See that he even called In an experienced friend
u Obtain his Judgment lie did not, nor could he.
know, from the means he employed, whether there
we're three or ten thousand dollars worth Of
u4uu1B Business men. acting In good faith, rarely
transact business IN this manner.
Again, II the transaction were q fair one, why
did ne rc1noye portion OF the goods from the
D0ij1lDC bF the OF q back window and fhrnQrh
m alley, and why was 1t that he retained Boil
skaw III the full aud entire management Of the
he might have done before. the sale These tainss
are not IN the usual course Of business. and, 10
Eay ths least crea1e strong presumption or a
. clerk TO carry on The business, It Is
anp,on of faoa crsn9s aad S9as ~ vRbs1 Rs
he uses and controls the property rs he did be-
lore the sale In such case It requires cle1r and
satisfactory proof 70 rseut the rsesanpt.an me
3 case should clearly Indicate honesty and good
ta1th to change the presumption. The ctrcum-
OF that character.
The reason assigned by Bolshaw why the goods
We're removed through q hsck window and through
object vas 70 avoid observation and not csi atten-
5swqved zs,~ s.1 ,d tFae taat 9S 'SG
1oor At the front entrance wns detective: but il
seems to Us TINT this WAS but prete1t, ns any
such defect ccald have readily been remedied II It
been removed that Wa! Men situated as they
were. Il their purposes had been honest, would
avoiding such g clandeStine course
HheI fully considered, tho evidence In this case
tmpresst us with the conviction that the verdict
1s not sustained by the evidence md that the case
snca 81 q u Y aasea 9pSa Ry .ne.asr tq Ta@ft1s @
to show that the transaction was bona fde Judg-
mtu1 reversed