The New York herald., 1870-03-01
WALL STREET wRIGGLINGs.

Van saun in Court-Iscape by Technicality-
The "Ways Of Wall Street'' Not All Told
Revelations to Come.
In the Superior Court before Judge Spencer, the
case OF Van Saun and Wheeler vs. Barr which has
to considerable extent shown up the ways OF Wall
street, came up yesterday for argument on the mo-
ton to vacae the order OF arrest or the defendant
Barr. The parties were represented by Mr.. Thomas
d. Robinson and Mr.. Z. W. stOuahton on behalf OF
the plaintiff and Judge Curtis ana Mr.. S. Stevens on
behalf OF the defendant.
In reply to an affidavit served upon the defend
ant, setting forth the conviction and Imprisonment
OF Joseph Dows, witness for the defendant by one
j. I. Leet, who swears that this Joseph Dows was
the same DOws who was convicted In Pennsylvania,
defendant also put In new afidavlt, setting forth
the offer on the part OF Leet 10 Dows OF 1000,
which he (Leet) said he could procure from Van
Saun & Co., provided Dows would withdraw his
aridavit made on behalf Of Barr and make anidavlt
for Van Saun. This aflidavit was corroborated by
the AFFIDAVIT or one Marshal, and also by the am
davts OF four other persons, who swore that the
D0ws In this case was not the man BOWS men,
toned IN the copy OF the Indictment and conviction
Judge Curtis opened the argument on benalf OF the
defendant, stating the facts AZ SET up in the ada-
Wit, and winch have already appeared in the
HERALD. He contended that the rule OF law is that
IN cases like this where II all the aflidavIs which
were before the court when the order OF arrest was
sad to be granted were contradicted the Court
could not refuse TO recall the order Of arrest and
thai the aIdaylts ia tbs case and the proof on be-
half ol the defendants were overwhelming showing
that the order OF arrest should be vacated More.
over, 1t was within the discretion or the Court,
trial Of the the case s upon ~ andavts @ ana par Il
the proof adduced the part OF the defendant were
Judge sitting at nisi prlus, with jury, he would
direct verdict for the defendant. and then the
order OF arrest must be vacated. Judge Curtis, In
conclusion submitted number Of cases bearing
upon the point ne contended for.
MI. Stoughton replied on pehalr Of the paintifls.
His argument was In effect OF similar nature to
that OF Judge Curtis, SO far as the points OF law
Involved, the only difference being that Mr.. Slough
ton claimed that the proof OF the defendant was not
sufficient to entte tho court to vacate the order OF
arrest.
Judge Spencer in taxing the papers said that this
was case or considerable Importance involving
some very nice questions both OF law and fact HE
snould read over the aridavits very carefully and
very accurately, and whiie he did not intend TO an
nounce any decision ~ present he would say that II
from the proofs adduced In behalf OF the defendant
he was satisfied II established hts innocence In
tractlng or undertaking TO contract debt with any
fraudulent representations or deceit he should va
cate tae order OF arrest But II he found that
the case was such, from its peculiar nature that 1t
could not be taken out OF the technical RUE OF prac-
tce, and that therefore he should be obliged TO be
guided entirely by the decisions IN regard 10 that
rule OF pracce he should not discharge the delen-
dant.
IL Is matter OF much doubt whether the SUPERIOR
Court has power 10 vacatc order OF arrest issued
ON Complaint OF fraud tnere being decisions for and
against such course. Judge Spencer stated that,
he felt bound to say that II the application for the
order Of arrest OF Mr. Barr had been made before
him ne would nave refused to grant It, lie would
take the adavits, read them. consult the antnori-
ties and give MS decision in due time Counsel for
the Van Saun sharpeIs urged that the Court mad no
power to decide. Counsel for Barr are ANXIOUS TO
nave the case tried by Jury that the whole matter
may be fully ventilated. The HERALD reporter, who
mas watched this case. Is Informed tnat the three
chapters OF the "Ways OF Wall S,reeLn already pub
lisned did not contain tithe OF the doings Of Van
Saun and MS company, and that a far more inter-
therefore, that Mr. Van Saun VIII have an Oppor-
tunity OF yindlcatlng his reputation before jury.