The New York herald., 1872-11-28

Action Against the Sheriff OF New York
for Illegal Distress and Verdict for
Plaintifr-OTcrs TO Bribe . Witness
Charge or Manufacturing n Bill OF Sale.
Before Judge Loew.
w. Purdy vs.. ex-SherifY James O'Brien.-This was
an action brought by Mr. Purdy against MIR.
James O'Brien, Sheriff OF New York. The case
created some excitement, as 1t was rum0red that
Mr.. Purdy, the plantin, had Indirectly offered
bribe OF $500 to Miss Phippany, an important
witness in the case, to absent herself from the
Court; that Mr.. Purdy had afterwards instructed
her Ia the evidence she was to give, to which, how
ever, she had dissented that he had assured her IL
he succeeded in gaining the case it would be worth
500 in her pocket. The bill Of sale under which
the property was held was reported to have been
made up for the purpose, and to have been dated
twelve months before IL was actually made out,
and this Miss Phippany declared to persons in the
Court was a fact, and further stated that Mr.. 0.
Hall had been instrumental in getting 1t made up.
ing that the bill OF sale was made by her, IT was
signed for her by Mr. Hall, and he had made an
we heq aqng So a It W
ness, who, swore thatshe was cOnsenting party
to the SALE was declared to have perjnred himself,
try and these and many other details which leaked
out in connection with the case showed the inten-
ton OF the plaintin In the suit in anything but
The action arose thus 1t was an action brought
by Mr.. Pnrdy against the Sheriff Of the city and
county Oi New York to recover the sum OF $500 for
the alleged wrongful taking and conversion OF two
couches table and six chairs. Mr.. Purdy claimed
that he had purchased these goods in connection
with other property from Miss Phippany, who
keeps house at 120 West Twenty seventh street,
in this city, and which 1t was alleged in evi-
dence was q house Of i'll fame. The
purchase was made in october, 1868. Mr..
Purdy testified that at the request OF Miss Phppany
he paid MIR. Byand, VINO held a mortgage on her
property, the sum OF $4 900 odd, purchase money
Tor these goods, and that bill Of sale was after
wards executed by Miss Phippany, and that he lett
the goods in the place where they had been before
MS purchase Of them. In 1869 q Judgment was oh
tanned in favor OF MIR. Greer for 500 odd, and In
satisfaction thereof the Sheriff seized these goods,
TO recover which the present action was brought.
The goods seized were an entire front suit Of
magnifcenty carved walnut furniture amounting
in value to over $500, although this value dis
puted but it was sold by the Sheriff at public sale
for $9O-a price which 1t was held could have been
lar advanced had proper caution and care been
taken at the sale.
The defence pleaded that as the goods had been
left in the possession OF Miss Phippany for the pur
pose OF maintaining house of iii lame, such being
illegal, the plaintiT had no ground Of action and
should be nOnsulted.
The jury, however, having been charged by
Judge Loew at some length upon the merits Of the
case returned into Court with q verdict OF 500 for
plaintiff to which should be added interest to date.
This case closed the business OF the Court for the
term.