The Portland daily press., 1873-03-05

ana rather RiOries i'm the sale Of himself
and his associates.-Municipai A fa;rs.-
Sketch of Mr. Davenport.
NEW YORK, March l, 1873.
| The case of Livermore, Clews & Co. VS..
Richard Bainbridge goes into history as re-
markable instance of the pertinacity and dar-
ing with which a conspiracy TO commit
great fraud through the machinery OF law
may be conceived and pursued for years.
gave an outline of this extraordinary litlga-
ton in a former letter, but without m4ntion-
ing names.
Tn 1862 one Richard Bainbridge, big, bur-
" Englishman, engaged in the stationery
business, plunged into the whirlpool of oper-
ations in stocks and gold, depositing '.mar-
pin'' with Lvermore, Clews & Co., whose
business it was. to buy and sell on commits
sion for SPECTATORS. His original deposi. was
about $4,000, but it was increased by profits.
aid as success stimulated him to new yen-
lures his transactions grew larger and larger
BY and by the tables turned, and Bainbridge's
profits were all swept away and his margiu
exhausted. Then his brokers notified him
that unle.s he replenished they Should sell
him out according to the custom Of the Stock
Exchange. He had no funds to make good
his deficiency, and his gold and stocks were
sold, and an account rendered him showing
balance due Livermore, CIews & Co. of
S16,35145. ,--t D..
For this amount they instituted a suit
against him on the Sd of November, 1858.
On the 10th Feb. 1864. the Attorney of Balm
bridge, lawyer of the Dodson and Fogg
stripe, put in two deienses. One alleged
numerous errors in the account, the other
averred that the purchases to cover short sales
were invalid and had resulted in damage to
the defendant equal to the amount of plain
tif's claim. This was in effect counter
claim of an amount equal to the debt.
The whole matter was referred to one John
P. Crosby, to take testimony and report.
Crosby held at that time position in the
community and among the legal profession
which made him satisfactory referee TO the
plaintiffs. He was lawyer, representative
OF one Of the old Knickerbocker families, a rig
id Presbyterian of the most s. raight-laced Or
thodoxy, and was populaily believed in aboutas
implicitly as Seth Pecksniff was believed in
by Tom Pinch up to the day the mask fell
from the face of that inveterate dissembler.
On the 18th of Move nber 1854, Bainbridge
commenced suit against Livermore. Clews
d Co., to recover damages for alleged i'm
proper sale of stocks, gold and demand notes
in May 1868, claiming therefor $4,000!
You will observe that Bainbridge had after
lapse of nine months increased his counter
claim from $4,000 to $4,000 New light
seer during this interval to have dawned
upon his darkened spirit. Whether he de-
rived it from his Attorney OF from brace of
lawyers Of the oily CANNON school named
Sewell and Pierce, who now figured in the
case. or from the referee who appears through
out the entire litigation to have been in rela-
tions OF the closest, and scarcely disguised
confidence with the defendant and his ad-
visers. he seems at all events to have acted
upon it TO some purpose, and thereby to have
changed his attitude in the case from that of
debtor to a creditor.
But the strangest part of this mysterious
chapter of conspiracy and fraud was reserved
for later stage of the proceedings. On the
I'd day of March 1870, the referee writes to
defendants attorney Hewitt as follows:
1.-THE motion made By you in this case to
acsthdraw your counter claim, the decision of
which ccas receiued at the time, haze de-
cided to grant, not seeing any prejudice to
arise IN the action to the plaintiffs herein"
The motion here referred to was to with
draw the counter claim of $4,000. 1t was
alleged to have been made on the 24th of
January 1866, but the referee first makes men,
tion of and gives decision upon it March I'd,
1870 and plaintiffs counsel were not notified
of it till the later date.
Now mark the language of this pious and
prayerful referee. He grants the motion of
defendants attorney mot seeing any preju-
dice to arise IN the action to the plaintiffs"
Mot seeing any prejudice to plaintiffs"
oh no.. This jealous, impartial, immaculate
holder of the scales of justice is so sensitive
ofthe rights of suitors, that he couldn't think
OF granting any motion wherein he could
see prejudice" to the right of either side.
Now mark what followed. This same ref
cree entertained and granted motion soon
after made by defendants attorney: 'sto
amend the dnsarer so as to include an alleqa-
ton Of damage to defendant by reason of the
untaagfnt acts Of the plaintiffs as set forth in
the second defense, to the amount of S13O, 900
and demaand Of judgment for that amount
1cith costs" -.
Here's richness for you! In February 1854,
the defendant disputed the claim of the plain
tifs, and interposed plea to that effect to
save himself from judgment of S16,351.45.
In November 1865, the same defendant has
discovered that the plaintiffs were in debt to
him $4,000!
In March 1870, this debt has swollen to
s13O,0OO!
But perhaps some charitable person will in
terpose plea for the central figure in the
quar'ettc OF conspirators, Crosby, and assume
that his action in the premises must have
been forced upon him by the nexorabe logic
OF the statute or bv the overwhelming weight
of evidence. To the first branch of this plea
l answer by referring to the opinion pro-
nounced on the 24th day of February, 1873,
by Judge Fancher Of the Supreme Court,
whose clearness Of head, soundness of judg-