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

Buying n Claim Against the United States
and Getting Ones Dixits Burned-IteIief
Sought in Court, but Denied.
A case developing q queer state or facts, and in
the development giving potent confirmation OF the
old apohegms regarding diamond cutting diamond
and the necessary dehlement ensuing from touching
pitch up yesterday before Judge Sutherland, of
the Supreme Court. The hingng point of the case
was 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 Its 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
PARTIES TO TIE SUIT
were Mr.. John NJ. Shcdd, a gentleman very well
known in certain political circles in tins city. who
Montgomery, also well known IN certain circles In
the national capita The plaintif sets lorln INN N ms
inglon d. c. the defendant called on nlm anu
stated that he knew OF certain
CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
for impressng into the service or the government,
and loss while in such service, OF the steamer Blue
Wing No. ?. This claim was then IN the hands Of
the Third Auditor and amounted to $4,000 1t
could be bought at large discount He proposed
TO the planti to avall himself OF the opportunity to
purchase strenuously, alleging that he had
INFLUENCE WITH THE THIRD AUDITOR,
and could get him to adjudcate upon the claim
to him OF the $2o,OOo-the full amount of the claim
within a few weeks All he asked the plalntifr to
pay fer the claim $l1, 800, After the defendant
had told this part OF the story the plaintn
MADE A PROPOSITION
that he would pay the required $1l, ,500 II the
defendant would call and see the Third Auditor In
person, and get him examine the OF the claim
thoroughly and carefully with him; and, after
such examination. that the Third Auditor would
assure him that the claim was goOd and valid one,
and further tnat all the evidence his posses
sion tnat possibly could be necessary to secure the
payment OF the claim, and still further, ir the An-
dltOr would promise him to make the claim mat
ter of special business and pass 1t with his approval
within ten days and recommend Its immediate pay
ment, and finally, n the Auditor after these promises
would allow him to take care OF the claim. after
having passed IT. to the Second Comptroller OF the
United States Treasury, and get the warrant for Its
payment With tins proposition terminated their
the plaintiffs recital Of the facts-the defend
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 prOpOsl-
tons embodied in his ae palatr propostion
And now comes the
FINALlTY OF THE STORY.
The plaintiff had parted with lis money, as he al
eges, on wholly fraudulent representations made
was rejected py the Third Auditor as unjust and in
valid, and has not and never will be paid by the
United States The next thing was for the plaintiff
TO make efforts to get ms money back, and he there
fore brought suit against the defendant for its re-
covery. on the ground OF fraud, with interest from
WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAYS.
His story has one merit at least-orevty. He de.
MES in the first place, each ana every allegation
forth IN the complaint charging fraudulent repre-
sentatlons on ms part secondly he AYERS that the
plantlM 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-
cares that the claim is 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 al their command that there
was just ana legal ground for the complaint ana
that the defendant should be compelled TO
pay back the money he had frauduentiy obtained
from the plaintiff They presented the AFFAIR
par with ordinary and common business trans
actions. The plaintln believed that the parties
holding the claim were willing to submit to heavy
discount for ready cash. 1t was known that the
government was proverhiay slow in passing upon
claims, and for this reason IL was a very common
practice 10 sell them. Defendants counsel, Mr..
Thayer, insisted that his client blameless, and
that the wrong, II there was any committed, was
committed by the plaintiff. The Judge listened pa
tlently to the argument on both sides, and then
dered the
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.
The dismissal was ordered the ground that IL
was clearly evident that the negotiation for pur-
chase OF the claim grew out OF expected irregular
influence OF an officer Of the United States sitting in
quasi judicial capacity and as such was against
and that relief could not be asked in court.