The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-04-26
MARINE COuRI-RARI |.
Action upon Revolutionary Interest.
Before Judge Curtis

Action upon n Reversionary Interest.
Before Judge Curtis.
DocKstader vs. HarOld.-The defendant in this
action was indebted to Peter Baltze, a shoe manu-.
facturer residing in New Jersey. Baltze
was indebted to the plaintiff whole
sale leather dealer, in the sum OF about
$4,000. also to one Jacobus, who had been in
his employ. Baltze, to secure Jacobus. made to
him bill OF sale Of his personal property, includ-
ing his book accounts, among which was a claim
against defendant subsequently Baltze made an
assignment OF his reversonary interest in the
claims after the Indebtedness to Jacobus should be
satisfied to the plaintlff in this action. Plaintiff
contended tnat Harold had notice OF the assign
ment to him. and assumed to hold him under 1t.
Defendant cOntended, first that the bill OF sale
and the assignment were conceived In fraud and
collision; second that defendant had no due and
proper notice OF the assignment; third that the
money due Baltze was paid by defendant TO the
Sheriff, who held an attachment against Balrze in
Judge Curtis charged the jury that it was incum.
Sent upon the pIantif to establish the
ment. and also to establish the fact that
notice was given to defendant to pay over before
the money had been paid by Harold TO the
TO certify to the Sheriff the amount
due Baltze, and to pay the same over to that ON
cag in the absence OF proper notice OF the assign
ment. But II Harold was in colliuson with the
judgment creditor in the attachment suit to de-
fraud Deckstader he was not relieved from respon-
Jury found tor plaintiff In full amount.
Action for False imprisonment.
william G. Washburn vs.. George Lewis.--The
plaintiff in this action who is a carman, In conjunc-
ton with his brother, sold the defendant certain
trucks and horses used in the carting business.
There was some dispute about the final owner
ship Of a horse and single truck lat the
time OF the difficulty hereafter mentioned)
in the possession of defendant. Washburn the
plaintiff attempted to seize the horse and truck In
the street. Lewis resisted the effort and the
struggle attracted the attention OF a policeman,
charges OF larceny were made. The police
man swOre that he was induced to take
plaintiff into custody upon representation OF de-
1endant, Lewis, that he desired to make charge
and truck. Captain Petty, of the Fifth precinct,
locked the plaintiff up upon charge made by
Lewis. Washburn was discharged by Judge BOWL
ing the following morning.
Defendant cOntended that this was an action for
malicious prOsecutlon and also that there was
probable cause to believe that plaintiff guilty
Of the offence charged, and moved Tor non-sult.
Judge Curtis denied the motion, and charged the
jury that the distinction between false imprison-
ment and malicious prosecution that false i'm
and held without process OF law; that malicious
prosecution was where the machinery OF the
law was invoked to prosecute and harass
q person. the complainant well knowing
plaintiff must establish that the defendant the
inducing cause OF the arrest, and that the next
consideration was, Was there probable cause to
believe Washburn guilty OF the offence chargedY
That as matter OF damage the jury could find from
nominal verdict up to the prayer OF the CON-
plant If they believed Washburn had established
his right to recover.
The jury found for plaintiff in the sum OF 500.