The New York herald., 1876-11-26

mentioned In plaintiffs complaint the answer is
general denial He states also ma. when ne msrrea
told her so before tho marriage took place,
ana thai he was no, aware that she had any property
ALL she got all Ihe money for the sale OF her
burial plot and kept that he told her al the time he
her and before that his former wife had been
divorced the ground OF adultery. and that tho
Cour, forbade him 10 marry again His wife was very
Jealous affection for his child and the child often
begged him not 10 leave her aloae with the plaintiff
Who had an unrovcrnable temper. He discovered also
that relations between the plsintin and Larkn
had never been such IS whereupon ne ie
upon his wiies lawyer and informed him OF his intcn
zion TO institute proceedings for divorce against her
He that has but hand and s unable TO work
and his pecunary condition win not permit him TO pay
al.mony 10 his vile.
A WARNING TO CONFIDENCE MEN.
Among the important decisions just handed down by
the Court OF Appeals decision tho George
w. Loomis and Thomas Lewis, the ulwin confidence
men," IN whose behalf Mr. William y. Kintzing, their
counsel made application in October last for their dis
charge from State Prison, claiming their conviction
was illegal They were convicted OF grand larceny at
the last December OF the Court OF General Scs
sions before Judge Sutherland and sentenced to 1ve
yesrs each State Prison. Tho facts disclosed IN.
genious case OF emirrant swindliug The complainant
In the case was emigranI and while e's route 10
New York on the cars formed the acquaintance OF
Lewis, OF the accused, upon arriving in the
saloon, and while there his confederate LOOMS,
appeared upon the Loomis challenged
Lewis 10 throw The dico for 500. Lewis, hav-
ing only $40, asked the emigrant 10 loan him $50.
assuring him he TO win but should he lose be
would repay him the loan ou. Of check Tor $500
cashed. Upon this representation the money was
loaned The dice were thrown. LOOMS won as u
intended. Upon pretext OF having some business
to transact The accused disappeared, leaving the emf
grant pssnIes Upon this state OF facts uuge Suthcr
land charged me jury shas .aey oeevea ns accused
complanant's money and 10 convert II absolutely 10
their without his consent they could convict
Counsel for accused excepted TO the ruling
OF the Court The jury convicted and upon appeal the
Supreme Court at General Term. affirmed the convic.
ton.
Mr.. KNITTING in arguing the application for their
discharge from the present commitment, contended
that larceny could not be predica.ed upon the facts
The conviction wrong, the smigrant not only
having voluntarily parted with tho possession Of the
money, but also with his property IN It. was not
taken either against his Will without his consent
There trcspass consequently no larceny. he
loaned the money bank bills 10 the accused, know
In doing he lost all control power and possession
The accused rtrusted with the possession OF the
money, and not expected 10 return the identical
bills Other bills were TO be returned 70 quidase the
debt Counsel further argued that while the idcn
returned, Is not the OF tho loan Of
money, especially when Is IS understood at ths time
that is to be used. Il not larceny II IL appeared
that the intended TO part with his property and
delivered possession, although he had been induced 10
part with u by fraudulent means. District Attorney
Phelps In replying for the people, commended that tho
conviction proper and sustained BY authority The
accused conspred together to obtain the property.
and the possession was obtained through trick aud
artifce, and without any Intention on the part
Of he owner OF absolutely parting with his title Tho
fraudulent conversion OF the money made II larceny
the criminal intent existing at the time OF taking He
further contcnded that the pretended game OF dice was
not honest one; that really, in iact, no money was
lost, rs money risked IL unlawful
combination. accompanied with u criminal Intent
VIZ, the robbing OF another victim. The jury
found. and the conviction should stand The Court
OF Appeals ainrms the conviction Of the Sessions,
holding tho conviction OF larceny proper and their i'm
prsonment legal. The accused at present confined
at Auburn State Prison. whore they Will out
their sentence unless pardoned by the Governor