New-York tribune., 1875-11-01
THE NOXON CASE.
THE CHARGES sUsTAISED-THE DEFENSE OF Mr.
NoxoN ExAMINED-sToRY OF THE WORTHLESS


NoxoN ExAMINED-sToRY or THE WORTHLESS
MORTGAGE.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
SIR: The friends of the Hon. James Noxon, Re-
publican nominee for Justice of the Supreme Court
in this district have published elaborate reply to
the charges affecting his integrity, which you pub
lshed last week. and beg leave to invite the partc-
ular attention of your readers to e nature OF tins
defense. Ii is made with great deal of warmth, but
if you look at it closely you will see that 1t admits
every material allegation in the letter of your cor
respondent H. l.. W., TO which it purports to be an
answer
The charge against Mr. Noxon is that in 1867,
owing $4,000 trust funds TO the Oakley
estate, and being unable to pay, he induced
the heirs to accept mortgages upon GER
tain pieces of property in Onondaga County. One
Of these parcels of real estate consisted of 80 acres
of land which he said he had purchased in 1861 OF
Mrs Belle Cowles and in n written memorandum or
proposition of settlement which he submitted to the
heirs he represented that the only lien upon 1t was
a mortgage of 50, 600. Subsequently NoNon became
bankrupt, and Mrs. Cowles brought suit against
Noxon and the mortgages to establish her vendors
hen Ii then appeared that Noxon had bought the
property in 1867, only five weeks before the eXecu-
tOn OF the mortgage, and not i'll 1861; that he had
never paid any part of the purchase money o,00o
and that there previous mortgage of So,OOo
The membranes, therefore, were $4,000 instead
of 1900, and the mortgage was worthless. The
Misses Oakley, your correspondent added, were
never able to recover dollar"
Now, what is the answer Of Mr. NoXon's friends
First, they assert that THE TRIBUNE "wiliully
and corrupty suppressed the fact that Mr. NoXonS
mortgage covered other property besides this thirty
acres and that you sought to convey the impression
that the Misses Oakley other security than
the piece of land in question. This reply is entirely
false need hardly remind YOU that the original
charge was in the following words: As the latter
lNoxonl was unable to produce the money, he offered
instead mortgages on property which he claimed to
own in this city and county. Among His property was
thirty acres of land in Onondoga County."-lN. \.
TRIBUNE, Oct. 25.l Secondly, they produce
certificate from the county clerk OF
the transfer of thirty acres of land
from Mrs. COwes TO NoXOn in 1864.
although it appeared in the course of the action
growing out of the case in the Supreme Court that
the sale was not made until May Is, 1866, five
weeks las you saidl before the execution of the
mortgage; the explanation of the discrepancy is,
that although the deed was dated in 1867, 1t was
not decercd then; the sale was really made, as ap-
pears from Judge Morgan's finding in the case of
Cowles agt Oakley and others, May 13, 1867, and
Mr.. Noxon never had possession of the property at
any time. Thirdly, MIR. Noxons friends show that
he has paid off about $4,000 of the mortgage on
the other pieces of property leaving large balance
about the security for which know nothing
This is the whole defense and what does it amount
tof In the lst place IT is dsingenuous, for it tells
falsehood about The TRBUNL's original charge, ana
it attempts to convey erroneous impression about
the date of the purchase of the property. Secondly,
il admits that Mr Noxon did give MORTGAGE 20 the
Misses Oakley on property which he had not pad
for. and that the property in reality never was hls,
and the security worthless. IL admits that IN
order TO induce the heirs TO accept this mOr gage he
made a written statement that there was "A prior
lien of only y, 900 the lots, when there were
actually f1nr mortgages amounting to 50 900, be-
sides an equitable hen OF Tl5,G00 being the entire
purchase money 1t does not deny, and suppose may
he understood admitting that the Oakeys, as their
agent testified in cOup never suspected these facts
until they were made defendants, more IMAM 10ul
years afterwards iii suit y Mis-. COwles tOestablisll
her claim upon the property lhedebt TO- MIS-. CoWies
had grown by that time 10 81 600, including IN
terest. But Mr.. Noxons friends plead that part OF
sources. What difference does that make 1t il
mort tgages, and only one Of thopl Was worthless. ,
Now, however at the eleventh hour, comes Mr.
COwles, partner of Mr. NOXOn and husband OF the
lady aboyo referred to. with an explanation OF the
unfortunate affair of the lots. MIR. Cowes states
that III 1867 there was project for eSt&DlIsmg ne
Syracuse University near this piece Of land, and III
anticipation of rise in value, Mr.. NOXon was bar
gaining with certain persons III New-l 0rK 10 sell
Them ths COylcs lots at a handsome profit. These
persons were to clear off all the incumbrances eX-
Cept an investment mortgage of 5000. The nego-
tiatOns in progress at tine time OF the execution
OF the mortgage to the Oaklcys and were concluded
ten days after that transaction, and ii the bargain
had been carried out TIE representations OF MI.
NON0n TO his creditors would have been made as
good as true, and cycry tang wOulC have come out
night. But the speculation fell through; the uni
ver-ity was built elsewhere; the lots declined in
vnlue and Mr. Noxon allowed his false representa-
tions TO stand. MIR. NoXon had every reason 10
believe" says Mr.. Cowles. that the 30 acres were
ia substance, though not peihaI5 strictly IN form,
clear Of all liens and membranes whatever eX-
cept the Az 900 assumed 10y his YendOrs'-a plea
identical in substance though not perhaps strictly
in form with tine Justification of tine detauiter who
excuses himself for taking the money OF his EN-
ployer 10 speculate with in Wal-st, on the ground