Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-02-14
LAWYERS AND LAW.
New York Disciples of blackstone I'm
TrOabIe-The Consequences Of Civ
ing CnIaafai Advice TO CIients-Oth-
er Legal Matters
From the Chicago Times.

IN. AhAtaSA.2a 4AaFAte 10 ONAiehss-Otn-
er legal Matters
From the Chicago Times.
New YORK, Feb. IA decision was
rendered by Judge Daniels to-day, in the
| general term of the Supreme Court, in the
suit Of NJ. A. GOodeuoUgh, plaintiff, and
VIM. II. Spencer, defendant. The case is
somewhat peculiar, and has led to unusual
Developments. 1t may be briefly stated
thus: In March, 1870, Spencer executed to
his attorney and counselor, Samuel Ste
vens, at the suggestion aud by the advice of
said Stevens, "a bill Of sale Of his horses,
farming utensils, and other property on his
farm AZ the town Of York Livingstone
county, in this State, 20 the value Of 5000.
The consideration recited in the deed IS
8, 900 for services as counsel rendered and TO
be rendered, or 10 become due. At the
time the deed was made Spencer owed
Stevens about 800, which did not appear
to be made part of the consideration. At
this time Spencer had become embarrassed.
There was a judgment against him, and the
bill Of sale was executed to Stevens to pre-
vent SpenCer's property being applied to
the PAYMENT Of the debt 10 his creditors,
Stevens agreeing to transfer the bill back
to his client when the embarrassment was
got rid Of and Al arrangement was made,
besides, that Spencer was 10 remain in pos
session for 6O days after date. On the lZth
Of August. Stevens procured from Good
enough, the plaintiff, $3.50, and delivered
to HIM the bill of sale, and an absolute as
siEnment of the same; but GOOdenOugh
agreed, on the following day, 10 re-asSign
the bill on Nov. l, for s, 900. Stevens told
GOOdenOugh the bill was proper, and for
FFharorrr.r.r,
GOOdenOugh demanded the property Of
Spencer, who stOutly refused to surrender
it, and GOOdenOugh brought suit for it.
The case went to a referee, who reported
for defendant. GOOdenOugh appealed TO
the general term, and the court Sustains
the Judgment be2Ow, holding that
GoodenOugh, under the circumstances, es-
pecialIy Spencer being in actual possession
of the property could not come in as an
s.innocent purchaser" In delivering judg-
menf, Justice Daniels spoke OF the crimi-
nal nature Of the transfer to Stevens, and
said both Stevens and his client, Spencer,
had involved themselves in il. The fact Of
acting as counsel did not exOnerate Ste
vens from the well-fOunded principles
which render persons liable who advise or |
direct the commission Of crime. The gen I
eral tern, ON the papers before it, issues an |
order on Samuel Stevens 10 appear on the /.
first Monday Of March, and show cause why .
his name should rot be stricken from the .
rolls Of attorneys Of the State.
In the case of David Z. Fank, counsel /
Tor Of the State, he is ordered to show /
cause why his name should no. be stricken /
OF the roll. for advising Nm. COmstOck,
an inspector Of elections last March, that
he could execute 4 power Of attorney en-
abliRg Dennis Hogan 10 act for him. HO-
gan performed the duties Of inspector, be-
ing, as the court says, deceived by that adj
vice, and was convicted for so doing under
The statute.