The New York herald., 1873-12-18
SUPERIOR cuuaT-TaIAl IEsR-paar l.
Action Against the East River National
Bank Dismissed.


Bank Dismissed.
Before Judge Mcneil.
Henry T. Romertze vs. East River National
Bank.-The third trial or this case, which has be-
come somewhat celebrated from the amount in
volved and the character OF the claim, terminated
yesterday by q verdict in favor OF the defendant.
The action was commenced In May, 1seS, and
first tried In February, 1869, the jury finding ver
dict for the defendant The case was then appealed
to the General Term Of the Superior Court and
the Judgment below affirmed. An appeal was then
taken to the Court Of Appeals, and q new trial
ordered on account OF errors In the ruling OF Chief
Justice Barbour, before whom the case was first
tried. The second trial was had before Judge
Mcneil and jury in May, 1873, which resulted in
disagreement OF the jury. The action was brought
to recover the Value OF u United States $1,000
skies, 1881, bonds, with coupons attached alleged
by the plaintin to have been deposited with the
bank on May, IL, 1865. and amounting at the pres
ent time to s23,765. The plaintiff alleges that he
never received any OF these bonds back, and that
he never demanded them until in January, 1865 /;
whereas the bank claims that its President, Mr..
Charles jenkins, alter having given the plaintiff
his package several times for few moments at
1867.
Counsel for the plantir in MS opening and clos
ing renected upon the character OF the officers OF
and hold their characters. Character is therefore
involved IN this controversy. 1t is not an honest
mistake. The bonds have been Appropriated,
stolen, and wicked means resorted to to retain
them
1t appeared by the testimony that the plaintiffs
FIRST connection with the bank was in January,
1865 when he opened an account there. May III
1865 he claims TO have deposited package there
for safe Keeping, and attempted to prove its con-
tents by his own evidence and that OF Mr.. McMur-
ray, q former bookkeeper in the bank Beyond
their testimony there was no evidence of the con.
not contain more than two three bonds at the
most, ana that they were delivered to the planti.
The defence claimed that the characters Of the
plaintilI and Mr.. McMurray for truth and veracity
were impeached. The palntir produced his pass
follows :-"May IL, 1865, left by Mr.. Romertze
package OF government securities to be put In the
to the testimony Of the plaintiff, the package had
never been opened after 1t went into the bank. On
the frst trial the plaintiff testified that he pur-
chased the IL bonds before the 1st OF January 1866
but on the present trial he swore that they were
purchased In April or May, 1885. The entire ac-
count OF the plaintin with the bank was produced
to refute this IL showing that from January TO May
1853, the gross deposits OF the plaintif did not
amount to 81 900, and in the two years and eight
months the total deposits were less than $4,000.
some tickets OF brokers for similar bonds, bought
May and 9 1865, were produced, and for these
these bonds he acknowledges TO have used while
travelling In Europe the same year. The plaintinrs
1861 and January and July, In 1866 and 1867. was
that he was sick, and unable to do any business,
aithough ne went TO Europe during each OF those
years, ana collected q royalty on patent at va
nous places and made deposits In the defendants
bank, and bought and sold, he says other bonds.
The plaintiff produced no evidence except his
own, o snow that he ever bought the IL bonds he
claims 10 have deposited. lie could not tell
where he bought them, except In q general
way or different brokers, and could not give
their numbers. He testified that he entered the
numbers In memorandum book, which, In Octo-
Der, 1861, he gave TO Nine. Rouiier.Angler "a
dressmaker, In whose house he r0oIncdl, VINO put
iti wardrobe on pile OF linen and among soed
clothing, and was unable to nnd II afterwards.
Had tho numbers been stated the bonds and
coupons could have been traced through the SUB
Treasury with ease, and this was one OF the main
points relied upon by the defence TO show that
this story was highly improbable. The plaintiff
tcstiled tnat on May II. 1851 some days after the