The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-11-19
COMMON PLEAS-TaiAL TERM PART |.

A Ore Hundred Thousand Cotton Dollar Suit
Alleged Fraudulent Transfer of the Staple
Before Judge Robinson and Jury.
Henry j. Gardner Us. Wtltano Ro1Ce ct dL-Tho
plaintiff s the representative Of the firm Of Gardner
Bacon Co., who are extensive dealers in cotton in
this city. The defendants appear under the title Of
the ''New York Warehouse and Security Company.'s
Tie present action instituted to 81 GALES
OF COTTON or their equivalent in money the Gotten
being alleged to have been frauduently obtained
from the plaintiff by the firm Of Br indel d Co..
cotton brokers. The latter firm, who 1t s claimed,
had no title whatever to the merchandise, trans
ferred it to the defendants to cover the SUM
of $4,000 formerly advanced to them. The
plaintiff claims that the cotton was sold for casns
that the Weighing anu turning out Of the same COW
cred period of three days. that the weigner'scer
tacate was sent to Brlndel & Co. on Saturday fore-
noon, when the messenger was told That check
would be prepared for HIM by one O'Clock, That az
that hour Brindell Co. were not to 30 found &C
their office, and IN consequence the ma.Cer nad 70
remain over until the following M0n!ay; that on
Monday the fact OF the failure OF Brlndel 20. was
made known to the plalnLlnS, Whereapon Iuey I'M
mediatey demanded the return OF TIE cotton claim
ing that In consequence OF It's having peen q
eas so ts a the to e tes could
until payment In cash nad been made.
In the meantime The cotton was stored oy the
defendants. 1t was discovered as alleged, I'D the
course OF further efforts on the part OF palntn t0
receive the cotton that Brlndell Go. had for some
time stored all their cotton with Inc defendants.
getting advances on it; thaE as far as could be as
ceralned Brindell Il co. had no capital, conducting
their trade mere margins: that at the time they
made the purchase OF The cotton In controversy they
were in debt $4,000 TO the defendants In the
shape Of ADJ ances; that IN order to Tx this trans
action there was an understanding between Brlndell
& co. and defendants that the latter should make
TO the former an advance OF $4,000 on this lot OF
cotton and that out OF this sum Brindeu & Co. were,
to pay back S2S O0o the existing debt According,
to this defendants gave tlelr check for $40 900 to-
Brndel IL Co., who gave in return $4,000 check.
On TINS advance OF $40 010 the defendants insisted On
their rlgny to hold possession Of the cotton IL
further appeared from the opening OF plairtlns
counsel that the only banking business transacted
by Hdndell Co. on the Monday following the sat
urday already alluded to was the depOsittng OF de-
iendants' check, the drawing against that cheek In
Their favor for SIS, co., and the drawing OF announcer
check In favor oil the cashier OF announcer
bank for S18,000 to make his accounts
square and leave the balance to meet their account
in thelr own bank and which had been OverdraWni
the amount Of $4,000. The grounds on winch the
painuff now seeks to recover are, that no title
passed from him, and thar, even IL 1t did pass the
possession OF the cotton was gained by fraud, TO
which the defendants were parties.
The above facts appeared from the opening OF Mr.,
Larocque plaintiffs counsel when the case was adj.
ourned until yesterday only eleven jurors appear
ing in the box when called Mr.. EvartS, counsel for
defendants, pleading The absence OF q material wit
ness as a reason why the case should 90 over Judge
Robinson allowed lg to stand over until next term
For plaintiff Mcfarland and Larocque; Tor de-
PENDANTS, Evarts and Choate.