The New York herald., 1871-03-16
SEEING THE AUDITOR.

Buying n Claim Against the United States
and Getting Ones Dixits Burncd-Relief
Sought in Court, but Denied.
case developing queer state OF facts, and In
the development giving potent confirmation OF the
old apoihegms regarding diamond cutting diamond
and the necessary detlement ensuing from touching
pitch came up yesterday before Judge Sutherland OF
the Supreme Court. The h,nging point of the case
claim against the United States, in which one
party, evidently strongly doubtful in his own mind
as to its ever being allowed and which was It's final
disposition, made another party believe that 1t was
going through all right, and succeeded In selling 1t
to him Tor something over half Its face
the latter party 10 pocket the difference
III consideration or cash down. The
PARTIES TO THE SUIT
were Mr.. John NJ Shedd gentleman very well
known in political circles in tins CITY, who
Montgomery, also well known IN certain circles In
the national capital the s plaintiff sets forth IN n ms
inglon, ID. c., The defendant called him anu
stated that he knew OF a certain
CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
for mpreSSing into the service OF the government,
and loss while In such service, OF the steamer Blue
Wing No. 2. Ihis claim was then IN the hands Of Of
could be bought at a large discount. He proposed
10 the paintn to aya himself OF the opportunity to
make good sum by MS purchase. He urged this
purchase strenuOusly, alleging that he had
INFLUENCE WITH THE THIRD AUDITOR,
and could get him to adjudlcate upon the claim
to him Of the $2000o-the full amount OF the claim
within few weeks. Al he asked the plaInnT to
had told this part OF the story the plaintiff
MADE A PROPOSITION
that he would pay over the required sl500, II the
defendant would call and see the Third Auditor In
person. and get him to examine the case OF the claim
thoroughly and carefully with him; and, after
such examination. that the Third Auditor would
assure him that the claim was goou ana valid one,
and further, mat all the evidence his posses
sion tnat possibly could be necessary to secure the
In IL
ditOr would promise him to make the claim mat
ter Of special business and pass 1t with his approval
within ten days and recommend It's immediate pay
ment and finally, If the Auditor after these promises
would allow him to take care OF the claim after
United States Treasury, and get the warrant for Its
payment With this proposition terminated their
hs pan sworn orr fe rea Of e s
ant called on him again. and stated that he had
SEEN THE AUDITOR
and that the latter had examined with him the
claim and promised to comply with all the pr0posl-
tons embodied in his (tne plaintifrs) proposition.
on the 23d OF May, paid $ll,5Oo to the defendant.
And now comes the
The plaintitf had parted with lis money, as he al.
! leges on wholly fraudulent representations made
by the defendant. On the 9th Of July the said claim
was rejected Dy the Third Auditor as unjust and IN
valid and has not and never will be paid by tht
United States. The next thing was for the plaintiff
fore brought suit against the defendant for its re
covery on the ground of fraud, with interest from
Tie u1Le vi puYmenl
WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAYS.
His story has one merit at least-brevity. He de.
MES in the first place, each ana every allegation
forth IN the complaint charging fraudulent repre-
sentatons on his part secondly, he AYERS that the
paintif purchased the claim IN violation OF the laws
OF the United States, and knowing Sucn purchase
was In violation OF snch laws; and thirdly he de-
clareS that the claim is a good ana valid one.
The
PROCEEDINGS IN COURT
were short, sharp and decisive. The PLAINTIFFS
cOunsel-Messrs. Edwards and Field-urged with
all the legal ingenuity at their command that there
was Just ana legal ground for the complaint, and
that the defendant should be compelled to
pay back the money he had fraudulentiy obtained
IRON the palntiff. They presented the affair as on
par with ordinary and common business trans
actions. The plantln believed that the parties
holding the claim were willing to submit to heavy
discount for ready cash. 1t known that the
government was proverbally slow in passing upon
claims and for this reason it was a very common
practice TO sell them. Defendants counsel, Mr.
Thayer insisted that his client bameless, ana
committed by the plaintiff. The Judge listened pa
tently to the argument on both sides, and then or
dered the
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.
The dismissal was ordered on the ground that 1t
was clearly evident that the negotiation for the pur
chase OF the claim grew out OF expected irregular
influence OF an officer OF the United States sitting
quasi Judicial capacity, and as such was against
public policy. and that both were equally wrong
and that reief could not be asked in court.