New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-02-11
THE COURTS.
THE CHICAGO REPUBLICAN SCHEME.
VERDICT FOR 81, 527 % IN TIE SUIT AGAINST
CHARLES A.. DANA.

THE CHICAGO REPUBLICAN SCHEME.
VERDICT FOR 1882 % IN TIE SUIT AGAINST
CHARLES A. DANA
Tn Supreme Court, Circuit, Part H., Judge
Jarrerore presiding in the Of the First National
Bank Of Springfield H. against Charles A. Dana, YER
dict was given Tor The plaintiff yesterday The address
OIL e. Burnett, counsel for the plaintiff brief as
he relied largely the following letter from Tic cashier
WV FIRST NATIONAL RAvK OF srRINGrrEtp,}
SPRINGFIELD, ILL.,. july =, loO9
F0n c. a. DANA, New JOTk-DEAR SIR: We nave b''h
unee to e. No han or Inc ktpnhf SCis ~ Wall
LONGER. make you this proposition 10 save tNIchse
II You VIII sue Tnc Republican Company iCr lG
syide lie eypense q" tie mi With yc; or r,tsl win
pay half OF Tie costs Of the suit ii this proposition sa1s
necessity ~ commencing suit against you n!n i rr
and think viii be more satisfactory al around 1ons
truly, fhNNiN W Ai'0O'' =. D.,
Mr. Burnott'roauosted the Judge to charge t'' II u
appears from the testimony that plaintiffs The Bona foH
owner and holder Of the note sued upon the phtiH ~
,i,id y, verdict FOR the amount OF said note Win SIX
,.r cent interest this date unless tie agreement con-
FAMED in the letter of the cashier dated July 1869 ana
The oreept,.ce OF the proposition contained therein ny
defendant is defense to this action; mat 10 10 inc
agreement ils LEGAL Interpretation Is that deieu"t
,hould bring suit against The Chicago ktPuO'ah
Con,uany and collect aud pay 10 plaintiff the
amount due on the note, or compel sald O"M-
many TO pay and discharge said note, and tH't
nIsintT would wait reasonable tine for that 70 90
done and that q reasonable time would be such pciiod
"a weuld be required for defendant with ordinary di-
c,,cc 10 bring such suit against said Company, ootah
SudguenU and issue execution upon said Judgment tb'l
A. the proof showed at plaintiff had thus waited and
has not been paid. then plaintiff is entitled to VelJct
fr the amount OF said noto with interest. Mr. Burnett
maintained mat he had proved that plaintiff ha9 waited
until del, niani Lad obtained lddsh.h! i9Su1u '~''"-
ticp and ird the sane returned unsatfhtd.
" o. Bartlett for RE defense declared tHVt perjury If'
been committed IN thc Gus, AMI lnaOe tie oInN ihN
Teol,r-s IL cal.s Thai the legal eject ana h,1'htl
of The contract which completed ny Ir. l'.ita
scesp4uce OF lie proposition contained IN me caSiei',
letter was tat the bank would rot sac Elln II lac would
49, Tine Chicago Republican e. mlaHy ior tie j. lu 81.
had Is reriorned ali the conditions Of Ike agreement
WLi,h was conilo,,d ~ lis acceptance u. ne prop
Usitiou contained the cas.iCi > Sitr, ie!e s ud DC
n verdict f1r Griciit'aut that all tie CNid'n," on
Ihe suldect showed thff lie had 'uiiy per- rH.c9
fbe con iltinn. oi his contract Nr. DattU cotTd",i
tl9t 4, ,ras absurd 10 cDAsju. tic contrast % tt H
ss o,yrl ING lees than Nh obligation ~ IN" pat ~ ttc
bank not 10 proceed against MI Dana unti hr sir'i
Lave had time follow up his suit 10 luds he "shs.
VS. Illegal and UuccE stijutiUEel oranY Ju0-" 20 It'
iuly what g,tct 1t scOnld Civ" JadS' - r'9 &c
tnsd 10 charge Mr. Bartcttt requests ana ne very t
pL.tcal!y declared that M excepted 20 cVt5 i'!' '
~ the Judges ruiiuEs and denied iJ legal 4-l Cd ia
srlct tie Jury in regard to Tie yeTtl"i
Judge LTemOre d,rIct the jury - ina FeCt' lot
plaintiff Tor - = p. Mr. Eaiti.t intna.tcd tt az.
with tho consent 81 the opposing ccaH-c. s-F was
cia4tcd 60 days Il. l.. bWh. II Appeared or 1879
fsiu,il: W. o. bartlett and Willard BHticd iVi tAc 49,
ieutsut.