The New York herald., 1871-02-03
TIE JUMEL WILL CASE.
Striking ExemplificatiOn OF the
Tricks of Lawyers.
Decision by Judge Cardozo Exposing the Trickery
and Defeating It's Purpose.

The liugatlOns growing out OF the Jumel will case
are as annoying to the heirs In possession as they
are costly TO the heirs claiming, and as familiar to
the public as they are amusing. The latest phase
In the case Is decision by Judge Cardozo, In
which, 1t will be sten be handles some LAWYERS
rather severely.
The Judge gave this decision in the case yesterday
morning He said that it was plain upon the papers
before him that at the time when the plaints gave
the stipulation to try their causes on the rst day OF
the November term in 1869, which was exacted as
condition OF granting their motion for postpone.
ment at the October Circuit they were preparing to
remove the causes to the United States Court, and
instead OF using the adjournment for the purpose
stated they at once proceeded with steps transfer
the suits to the federal court. He could reach no
ether conclusion than that the stipulation was not
given in good faith, with the intention then OF keep
Ing 1t, for nothing was shown to occasion change
OF intention occurring afterwards. but that 1t was
given with the design Of not complying with it, but
for the purpose OF assisting the plaintiffs to obtain
the requisite delay to enable them 10 defeat the
jurisdiction Of this court. The favor OF the court
was solicited under the preIence that 1t was neces-
sary to enable the plans 70 proceed to trial in the
State court, when In fact II for an entirely DIFF
ferent purpose-that Is to say, to prevent trial in
the state tribunal The real object OF the delay was
not disclosed, but carefully concealed lhe terms
required by the court were accepted by the plaintiffs
and that acceptance was calc1iated and must have
been 80 UNDERSTOOD ana therefore 1t be assumed
was so designed to impress the Court with the belief
that the plaintiffs were acting in good faith 1t does
not hep the plaintiffs to say that the question OF the
expediency OF the removal had been considered
ameng the counsel and the plaintiffs before the ap-
pllcatlOn Tor adjournment and the papers drawn TO
be used in case such removal resolved upon 1t
was rather, he insisted, confession against the
the fact that that important point under delibe
ration should have been stated. He disliked to be
harsh, but he could noe avoid the conclusion that
this conduct was what PLAIN, honest peo-
pie would call fraud. When the causes
were called IN November the plaintiffs, who
Immediately after procuring the adjournment. had
taken proceedings to remove the causes to the fede
raj court, relying upon the validity OF their pro-
sa0r o s m pos default to be
standing that Judge lngraham held that the pro-
ceedings for removal were invalid and nefrectual,
contrary. In June, 1870, the United States court,
concurring with the State court, held the proceed
cause from its docket. After this tne plaintiffs did
not move promptly here but waited until the month
OF October 1870 before asking to open the Judgment
taken on their default. This delay, even II the
default had been ordinary should have been satis-
iactoriy accounted for, which it has not been.
Moreover these defaults occurred year before the
motion. II the defaults were ordinary ones GER
tainy very strong case should be made where relief
is not asked until nearly year after Here the
only excuse for the delay Is that the plaintiffs were
relying upon the validity OF an act which itself
bad laith towards TINS court. It needed, In his
opinion, no authority to support the proposition
that such an excuse Is wholly inadmissible, ana
that party VINO has so demeaned himself toward
the c0url, who has broken faith with IL, should not
after having found that his scheme is failure
receive favor for the purpose OF being relieved
from the consequences which he suffers by reason OF
that breach OF faith and OF his reliance upon the
wisdom and accuracy OF a course which results
have shown to be mistaken and ill-advised With
the question of the allowance he had nothing to do
and he could not therefore, review the action OF the
other Judge. II they exceed the limit prescribed by
law. perhaps an appeal from the Judgment will
enable the plaintiffs to get that corrected but
II the objection rest SIMPLY upon the ground that
the circumstances did not demand so large an al
lOWaucp agreed IT.. IA
was presented to him, he could only say that the
Judge at the Circuit exercised his discretion ana he
could not review IL. Application for that relief
must be made to this Justice. Upon all these facts
he denied the motion.