The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-11-24
and following such engagement, signed the following

For, hs purpose improving mental and physical
ss .ss or
bis M the period nrs Go %SS Sss
& sss Is h my % ana oa
to ssvs asrss value Dr.
the smploy Of Angel Angel from aay saass
from his in either to receive my
and hereby make claim for further remunsrA
agree also not to ale. beer. wine, strong auors
any ~
or receive either directly indirectly oe or brides
sny g or gs any grauty or ss.uise a IRON sh
1ass sns sssi' S
such ssx asss e ~ 81 iss1 SSbSrn
After remaining with Dr. Angel nearly three
months Miss Blodgctt was discharged and thereupon
she brought suit against HIM for $685. claimed TO DO
owing to her for services. Her story on the witness
stand was that she had nothing whatever TO do with
the bathing establishment and not In tho re-
hottest manner initiated in the mysteries OF the Turk
Ism BATH but on the contrary that she was assigned as
instructress OF Dr. Angels daughter, young lazy
nearly fifteen years Of age and that It was Tor thus
reason she instituted the suit, claiming that tho
purv,ew OF the contract On cross-oxamnation
by Mr.. W. A. Boyd, the defendants counsel, she
said that she carefully read the contracts that while
with DR.. ANGEL she was allowed part OF the time to
teach substitute In public school, ana that he let
hona for her eovd
that She had boarded al two water cure establish
ments but iatled to mako out that she was strong
minded wrote for the papers, or was an ardent dis
cple or George Francis Train, although she admired
him and attended his lectures DR.. Angel testified
that specific agreement was made that she should
teach his daughter, aud that she fully assented 10 tho
contract Mr.. ID. d. McKoon. the plaintiffs lawyer,
sought TO strengthen his clients by rigid
examination Of tho doctor, but without avail. the
final result being disagreement OF the jury
RIGHTEOUSNESS OF MEMORY.
little episode occurred in the Court OF Common
I.tn.
be interesting to ltigants and lawyers. About five
wears ago David Moore commenced action against
Matthias Goetzel. who recently sojourning In Lud-
low Street JAIL charged with swindng Mrs PaycKen
out OF several thousand dollars Goetzol put In an
answer In the Moore suit and the matter Ian guished
in the court until recently when Colonel George IL.
Hart made motion 10 place the cause on the short
cause calendar. II appeared that Goctzers counsel
notified Goetzel when the motion made, about
one month ago that he would have nothing 10 do with
him or his business, and for him to employ other
counsel When the case was called Goetzel stated TO
the Court that he had never boon served with tho
summons and complaint, and knew nothing OF the
case until no received the notice from his counsel.
His sworn answer, subscribed by him. then pro.
duced, and the Court administered sharp robuko TO
him and directed the case 70 @ aad the plsn
tho Court added an extra allowance
THE LATE BANK BURGLARY.
There has already been published in the HERALD
the particulars OF tho burglary committed at
tho corner Of Third and Twenty-thrd street,
under the Fifth National Bank in the banking Offices
OF D. W. Morgan. and the theft of $1,000 in
money and negotiable stock The police will be
MON bercd had clew the perpetrators OF the rob-
berry except the tools they ert behind, but arrested
William Brown aud Frederick Miller on suspicion of
having committed the crime. Their counsel, Mr..
William f. Howe, SUED out a writ OF habeas corpus In
their behalf and yesterday prisoners
before Judge Lawrence, at Supreme Court, Chambers
where a motion was made for their release. II was
claimed by Mr.. Howe that there was evidence to
Justify the detention OF his clients, ana after dis
cuss0n agreed that the prisoners should be
discharged.