New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-03-21
THE COT RTS.
supreme Court.

isiana. which now stands adjourned. VIII ne
in session again on Monday next. the
twenty-scventh instant. 1T which time
they will read opinions. and city cases will
be called by tie clerk for the second week
in April.
United states Circuit Court-IIOD. W. Il.
Woods Presiding.
In the case OF the United States VS.. John
Thompson-T defendant and his surctic>
havin. failed to appear. it was ordered
that the rccOgnlzance> be declared for
feited. and that the defendant as principal,
with j. Marony and W. J. Thompson
suretie-. be condemned IN Solido to pay the
penalty of the bond $1,000. Similar judy
ments were rendered i'll the cases OF the
United States W. Pedro Nircl. and the
United States vs.. William SIiires and Fred
Saybrook.
In the ease of j. ). Wide ,Ir.. q Co. VS..
Thomas {. payan and ii. l.. Zeba, iudg-
mcnt was rendered on motion of attorneys
for plaintiffs and on suggesting to the
court that duly attes:cd and judicial con
fcssion had been made by the drfcndhlltS
in favor of plaintiffs ior the several sums
named in said confession.
The following Is the charge to the jury ny
Judge Woods. of the United State, Circuit
Court Yesterday. i'll the ease OF Ednllni l.
Allen. assignee in bankruptcy. of Isaac
Heckadav. vs.. Leon Levy and Holman,
Marks n Co.:
Gentlemen of the Jury: The plaintiff
as assignee i'll bankruptcy of one Isaac
Hockadav brings this action against the de
PENDANTS to recover the price and value OF
a stock of goods alleged to have been sold
bv Hockaday to defendants III the month o1
MAY. 1870.
The plaintiff bases hi, right to recover on
these asserted facts: That Hockaday con
templatin. insolvency. and with intent to
hinder. delay and dctrand his creditors
within four months next before the declara-
ton of his bankruptcy and with intent to
prevent his property from coming INTO the
hands of his ASST gnee. and to prevent its dis
tribution among his creditors under the
bankrupt act and to cvade and defeat the
provisions of said act. disposed OF SAID stock
of goods to defendants, who have converted
the same to their own use That said sale or
transfer was not made Ill the usual
or ordinary course of business of said Hook
aday. and that the defendant at the time
had reasonable cause to believe that SAID
HOckaday was inSolveut and acting III con
temptation of insolvency. and that said dis
position of his property was intended to de-
feat or impair the operation OF the bankrupt
act. and prevent his property from coming
to his assignee.
The defendants file a general denial of
the allegations of the petition. Hoffman.
Marks x Co. deny specially that Hockaday
made any sale to them that they pur-
chased the said stock of goods or any part
thereof.
Leon Levy substantially admits the pur-
chase of the goods from Hockadav, bat de-
MES that at the time of the purchase he had
any cause to believe that Hocllailay was in
solvent or contemplated Insolvency. or that
he intended to impair or defeat the opera
tons of the bankrupt law. or to prevent his
property from coming to his assignee III
bankruptcy.
The issues submitted for your decision are
therefore.
L. Were Hoffman, Marks Il Go. parties
with Leon Levy in the purchase OF the goods
from Hockaday? and
:. Had the purchaser or purchasers
reasonable cause to believe. at the time
of the alleged sale, that Hockaday was III
solvent or contemplating insolvency. and
that the sale was made to defeat or impair
the operation of the bankrupt act. and pre-
vent his property from coming to his as
signee.
Upon the first point instruct you that in
order TO recovery against Hoffman, Marks
4 Co.. YOU must be satisfied from the proof
that they were parties III interest III the
purchase of the goods. If tine purchase was
made by Leon Levy alone. on his own ac-
count and for his own profit and adEan-
tage. then. even though it may appear that
Hoffman. Marks 4 Co. assisted him in
making the purchase by the loan of money.
or by taking part in the treaty that pre-
.ceded the sale to Levy, then Hoffman.
Marks x Co would not he liable in this
ton. If. on the other baud. you should be
satisfied from the proof that Holman.
Marks & Co. We're Ill fact Interested with
Levy in the purchase OF :he goods. that it
was Joint venture on their part with Levy.
and they We're to receive a share OF the
profits of the transaction, if any. or bear
IL, of thn / IN, hat
even though the sale was nomlnaily
made to Levy. Yet Hoffman. Marks
& Co. would also be purchasers, and would
Ie Jointly liable with Levy for the value of
the goods ii the plaintiff should succeed
in establishing the other point i'll dispute
between the parties
To reach a satisfactory conclusion upon
this point of the case YOU will consider all
the direct and circumstantiai evidence
which must he still fresh in your minds
If YOU shall find upon this issue for Hot.
man, Marks & CO., then you can lay them
out of your further deliberations, and it will
be your duty to return verdict III their
favor even though they knew that llocka
day was insolvent, and was attempting TO
evade the provisions of the bankrupt act at
the time Of the sale For if they were not
directly or indirectly parties to the purchase
of the goods. they can not be made liable IN
this form of action.
Having disposed OF lills Dfdncn .! tne
case. you will next address yourselves to the
inquiry: Did the purchaser or purchasers OF
this stock of goods have reason to believe
at the time of the purchase that Hockaday
was insolyent or contemplating Insolvency
and that his purpose was to evade or impair
the operation of the bankrupt act
If YOU find the affirmative of this prOpO-
sitiOn then the law declares the sale traudx-
lent and void, and the plaintiff i, entitled
20 recover of the purchaser or purchasers
Il on the other hand, You find the negative
OF this proposition TO be true. then. even
though Hockaday may have been insolvent.
and although lie made this sale to defeat
his creditors and to cvade the provisions OF
the bankrupt act. st.I! the plaintiff ought
not to recover.
To enable ven 30 reach satisfactory con
clusion upon this question whether or no
the sale was fraudulent one under the
bankrupt act, and therefore void. there are
certain rules of evidence TO which II l.,
proper should call your attention.
Fraud is never presumed Ii must be
established by proof. But the proof need
not necessarily be direct ana positive. 1t
may I've circumstantiaI
lou Will scrutlnZe the evidence IN this
case and endcavor to ascertain from all
the facts proved whether or not the pur-
chaser or purchasers of these goods had
the reasonable cause to believe flat IIocka-
day was insolycnt and had the purpose OF
evading the bankrupt act: anu in this
connection it is proper for YOU TO consider
and determine What Facts came 10 the
knowledge of the purchasers at or before
the time OF sale. and whether they were
sufficient to give them reasonable cause to
believe that HOckaday was ins0vcnt and