New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-02-27
THE COURTS.
United States Circuit Court.

United states Circuit Court
Cbarl.s Case. receiv er, ve. q. /. Beatre,
gard et als-A sealed verdict was TehoeIeu
Inv the Jury on Tuesday and opened yestel
dav in court. The verdict IS IN lav"r u
niaintif against G. T. BeauregaTd anu
IfTh,,,,.s p NAV each. for one-third OF the
gmount claim, d, bting S29OV3 6g e"cH'
with legal interest from May 10 loo''
Second District Court.
III ,,,ooes.i,ns of Mrs. T. ROuhet born
Naria D,ckman, and OF Mrs. Eilz& W.
Unrhea wife of James h. BeldeH' Hd''
been opened in this court.
Finh District Court.
II ,bo case of Mechanics and Traders
1,,nl, va Wagner 4 Meyer, Zorn q Bremen
ipdorsers. the action IS based on prollils-
sorv note dated in New orleans, Octopel
"a, 1872. whereby Wagner a. MEYER prom!
God IN nav TO their own order the SUM OF
S7O0 If was Endorsed by them, and also
nv Zorn & Bremen. as appeared from Its
inspection. ,::
said: H. ,;.ioo+io-
10 as TO the genuiDeness OF the endorsement
of Zorn g. Bremen, they having urged that
II ia n forgery Several witnesses have
hon examined, all of whom are respected,
yeracious and we'll known business men OF
+bia city. some of them having been en-
Gagged in the banks for series OF years,
And charged with the office o. inspecting
siunatures at the counter OF the p2nKs'
they NAV be said to have enjoyed peculiar
advantages in learning to detect forgelles'
MANY Of the checks OF Messrs Iorn ~
Rremer. drawn before and after the note
now sued or purpOrts to be Endorsed ny
them are also offered 10 evidence. Mr..
Zorn swears positively that the indorse-
msn+ is n forgery. 1t appears from the ey-
ideDce that Wagner & Meyer and Messrs.
Zorn and Bremen were in the habit OF eX-
changing checks IN the transaction OF their
business That Mr.. Zorn called at the bank
very shortly after Meyer had absconded
and asked for the note, stating that he had
heard they had a note of Wagner q Meyer
for S7OO. indorsed by his firm. The note
was shown Mr. XOrn. and he remarked, after
examining it about fifteen minutes, that II
it was not his signature II was the pest
counterfeit he ever saw IL his lite. Mr..
Zorn saws he told the president OF the bank
MIR Rohinsonl that the signature was a
good imitation, but that he was morally
convinced he did not sign it. He stated to
Mr. Robinson that he had some weeks ago
indorsed a note for Wagner and Meyer.
The note in question was dated October i,
1872 matured December l.. 1872. The
bank discounted it October %. 1872. Mr..
. Huard states that Mr.. ZOrn had converse
ton with him about the note two days after
. Never left. in which he (I0rnl told Huarh
that he had Endorsed note for Wagner ar
Never Tor 500 which he would possibly
lose. In that conversation he is repre-
scented as knowing all abOu: the
banks ownership of the note. On his
second visit he said il was forgery.
Huard saws that at the first conversation
he had with Mr.. Zorn about it, The aCknow.
lodged that ne had Endorsed the note. u
appears, also, from the testimony Of the
president MIR RObinsOn), that when he cX-
anined it in his presence be remarked that
it was a very hard case he should have to
lose 500 bv Mr. Wagner and Mrs. Wagner.
Nyitness' understanding from Mr.. Iorn was
that he was going TO pay the note. n0tWlth-
: standing he had some doubts as 10 the sig
y nature He (ZOrn) made no objections to
having the balance left in bank, on account
of one or both members of the firm. placed
as a credit on the note.
The checks exhibit much uniformity in
Che ordinary signatures Of the firm of Z0rn
& Bremen, with slight variation from that
uniformity in the signature before me.
The most noticeable difference being
in:the letter 80" in the name of Bremen.
which, in this case, is Topped by second
stroke of the pen, whereas IN ali the others
the firm seem never TO have been attentive
10 the formation of the loop. The move
lines are not so small as they are generally.
This may be attributable to several causes:
z The position of the hand while writing.
2. The nervous condition of the writer.
g. The deliberatiOn OF haste with which
it is written.
A. /. The quality of the pen.
Il ;. The quality of the paper and ink.
' g. The position of the paper. whether il
. presents q perfectly fat, smooth and firm
surface, or the reverse.
All these causes may affect the uniformity
of a signature, and produce eccentricities
which. while one may plainly and easily
discover the general characteristic and like
ness of the signature, nevertheless strike
the attention OF the critical INSPECTOR.
For these reasons l am not prepared to
cav, in the face of the confession OF Mr..
X5rn, and all the corrObOrative circum-
stance developed in the testimony OF the
gentlemauly disintereated and experienced
Witnesses who have testified in the case,
that the Endorsement is forgery. There
must be Judgment for plaintiff.
Judge Cullom read the following inter
esting decision on the rule taken in this
court for new trial in the case Lalaurie vs.
Gerodias:
This case is now before the court on a
rule for a new trial. Its merits were care
fully investigated and considered when
first submitted, and have not been able to
find any good and sufficient reason, although
aided therein by argument OF counsel. Tor
thinking the decision then rendered IS
wrong. ! fully agree with the attorney of
Mr.. Lalaurie that great intimacy did exist
between these parties, and it Is perhaps nm
fortunate that the friendship SO sgnaily
distinguished by confidence had not sur
vived their business transactions.
However this may be, | am utterly I'M
able to discover from the voluminOus evil
dence before me, that the agency OF Mr.
Lalaurie for Mr.. Gerodas was ever III
tended TO be extended beyond the simple
investment of Gerodlas' money IN stocks,
etc. As to the conversation that appears
10 have taken place on Canal street be
tween Messrs. Gerodias and Mr.. LapOrte,
in relation TO opening Il brokers' office, in
which Mr.. Lalaurie was to Otficiate as a
specuIator for Gerodias, there is not a par
tiele of evidence to show that il was con
summated, or attempted to be carried out.
On the contrary, witnesses examined on
+bis noint stated that they had been doing
business on Carondelet street for years.
and that. although they were accustomed
To see Mr.. Lalaurie about there. they never
knew he was a broker: that II ne hau petn
they would have known it. Now, although
somethinp was certainly said about open
ing a brokers' office, as is testlheu 10 oy M
LapOrte, there is not sclntllia OF eNIuEhVe
going to prove that anything was ever cone
10 carry ont that teebly intimated SPecula-
tive enterprise. ~.
Counsei next spoke Of the fact that Dir.
Harrison had never answered his question
directly and categorically as to the eonsld-
Grafton which he gave Lalaurie for the TWO
srortoare notes I regarded his evidence
as being prudently dictated, and as SUD
stau,iaIiy, directly and satisfactorily, an
swering all the questions Of counsel. 1t is
very true be gave Mr.. Lalaurie nothing for
them. but it is equally so that he had given
Gerodias $l2,O0O, which las Lalaurie owed
ubOuE l,v HIS own