, 1870-10-22
THE LAW COURTS.
LzsSaIic Street Tunnel A~nfu-
DkAposit1ou OF the steele
building

cOxAkRCtAL-STEAitSG DRAFT.
cnafles u. AahAfns Ct al tuarkins / VIII
Halnslv William H. Squtsss. This u an actlon OF
a'sum9-it brought 6y p;aintIIs, fruit dealers Of
New iotE. to recover u balance OF some $40. Al,
'eaed 70 be due IRON Squises, commission man
thah OF nls city. The uulJ matter Of contruyersy
telaed TO the question whether Squtepy had or nal
not tad certain draft thar wss drawn nv
plaintiffs upon him. 4 sight draft for x.4n was
utAHn upon dtIentAn*, and ut the same ,inr q
':ait foT sG3s ut ten days. also tran suited
to the FtEst National Uank, On S1nt:cs. for n.
cep:ance. lie was no.'ied ty the bank Of the re-
ce,pi ct the s11atL During tue after.
neon the sight draft was huuo-f.s.
ana 81 Is alleged tn the rsrt of r!.n,Hs when he
hat paid that the t,me draft was handed 10 rim
for acceptance. This 1t is calmcst, he t,ok .rav
win him, ns was sn7re set!, to verify It With his
accounts. tu. he Jailed To return II, ard c,aue,l
thai he hui pats! IL. The hanE trefs wefc pretty
posltEs Ill I'M It ultny to tile Ctth' rr}, white
ui"a The ti'af sinses sw1se. without IN. gualn-
catl2o. taa' pE Ihse same .fay tilat hc raid tac
5s sft hS o., rsy ae 'as .'at aliaoas I
stamped Wltn tie bank stamp ''paid:' the rln1e
ti7ati was nrt-
Oo tile part Of the defendant, tile C,uFt was
asked tn tnatr,t that shc Possession bt So.-cs VI
The tsratt was rrinIa fs-it evt,cuce thai 1t hal
nstn Putt By INN. The Court did nos 10 %. q.
r3ssesah ol this draft was rot evidence tha: it
nsd been paid ty .hc defendant. tn: 50 l.- a. .nt
stgt arr
WAS moi parry tn 1t: he hal ntve. Accepted ID.
a1I there had ho l.attlny uEon tho iace Ut ta.:
pIIer a. yet cver h.cE ss:utat.t ty S,uises WEI
rstsrtn;S to T. neio1e r:srr5 h. a.ne l.a,'e
nrhI Vim" flff tic S1lISt atc.: it, an{ this far
Il nrreafs to be ohlF rrgHest thu. tlef...ti.nt
5ntu1d nay tue amount Of Ianes destktat.d.
Her III It Was tdtseit fran r!i,,Es ..ry .l..lr
which was cumplrtc.i tl.-tr,Il:t'., cs-fyic. nj
o1isatt 10 tay. which obligation r,,l,,.ny tatJ tie
Iossesston VI the uhi!sbr, ihc i~sst-slul oecUm,.
presumed In favor of honesty in at.1l,,r,a. it. ii
the draft had l,een IL rtc and !sn hAG l., tlr
possession Of the nank, 1ncn t1e fart that s,shsc-
would raise tue presumption OF payment There
tote, the fact OF payment WIS to be discovered by
tas 1ss,1msn5 % s,1lcs,ainz such ra5nen Tu.
was 70 fe weighed with the understanding that
tsie burden u proof vas on the defendant, who
aatsstactou ot tho jury. 50 that II slionIi spocar
morc nrolrahle thar he had pail the time ,ir,ft
than that lie had not pat'l It.
tsencr, such VI tit TACT 1hat the time draft Eal
not On 1t tn. stamp OF tn bank cvt1encfnt.
b$,epant "si al tes sste Ssh, a!a ass5, ha
t1aptn isltd them 10 New iesk to bolster lis
Is dn.; anil Jet when The l,ack c4sh,e: yisiyd
him, he fa!,t The dta!rs WI With hts lawrrr AQI
insy ,y, were m there, n,t.n,an, sworc ae rail the
the bank books did n0t vt'ify Ills statement: ret,
his tenR cause 10 recover The ''ct., II hr pail
the arast. tht teers' statement anu The
bans sooks ought, In trason, u surror: Iii sfate
me-t, hu. here they cnncstt. anl The Jury shou!tl
consider whatever so urtt+naf a riEcu:Estaice ~
Lei"Ie 1t was due, lid Or snl LOT support tic
theory Of non-rayMenr, l'scanst - ,'utsnal ctr
cunstasce e Wo"s,, r.''ha'ty, ensraft ttss1f upon
money. The .iFswec had the right ~ ply tao
!:,a!s when It WIS Presented foy acceptance.
WEc;htr he l 50 mu,t oc s;;-c!'t-d hr sll ii: CIR
fEst1nreS surrs!'iI:l, ht.1, the cns:.1 OF bcai-
nf=S, AMtI fGt testimony an either File