The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-08-07
THE COURTS.
Countess Heinruch'S Famous Suit
Against the Late Dan Marley.
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.
The Evidence Made Up Of FaIsifed Ac-
counts, Forgeres and Perjury.
GARBAGE IN THE LOWER BAY

The now famous case OF Catharne Nesta Ennismore
Hicks, known as the Countess Heinrich, against
Robert Martin, which tried time te-
fore Judge Van brunt, in the Special Term Of the
Supreme Court, and reported in the HERALD, was de-
cded yesterday 1t appeared that trial that long
course of dealings had taken place between the late
Dan Marley, well-known furniture dealer BrCud
way, and tho Countess, the final settlement Of which
resulted in the selling out of all her furniture
under a chattel mortgage and the giving by her
10 him OF bond for $14, TOO After Mr. Marley's
death his executor, Mr. Martin, the defendant in this
case, sought to enforce payment OF this bond The
Countess then brought the equity
the prosecution Of the suit the bond ana to have
judgment in her favor for $40 600 OF account
besides largo damages. Upon the trial it claimed
on her behalf that her non-udeDtedness the bond
and the opposite balance which drcw in her favor
would be found TO be verified and substantiated by
fair statement OF the accounts between her and
Marley and that the state of facts which
the executor sought enforce his side of
the was the result of erroneous
or false accounts made out by Marley To sustain her
side OF tho cause she submitted to the curt exhibits
OF accounts. receipts and checks, which she alleged
had passed between her and Marley. She also testi
fed that Mr.. S. L. H. Barlow, counsel for Marley
had examined the accounts which the balance in
favor OF Marley was based and that Marley had in
that she was sold out The claim of the defence
that some Of the statements OF accounts and exhibits
on which she sought 10 sustain her side OF the case
were forgeries Mr.. Barlow testified as own
alleged action in the matter that had come TO
him while he was counsel for Dir. Marley, and that
alter be had heard her statement and gwen her cred.
for every payment which she CLAIMED 10 have made no
still found her In debt to Mr. Marley the amount
for which the bond had been given; that IN any ad-
accordance with hts strict duty his counsel and
had no other interest whatever as between the parties
mn Vn hic ian acta
the case of tho most remarkable that has ever
come under his observation, and that he knows OF
OF conception or in tho skill with which much
OF the proof had been fabricated, proceeds to
say that upon the trial the plaintiff presented
case which, as far as the accounts between
the parties were concerned, seemed be, when the
case was submitted 70 him for decision, almost I'm
had shown beyond any question that the majority of
that evidence had been made up OF alsiled accounts
OF orgcres and Of perjury and prepared with so much
art to entirely escape the attention the counsel
for tho defendants The thing that attracted the
almost every paper that presented by the plaintiff
upon which claim for credit mot allowed by the
defendunU was founded, was musilated IN some re.
spect-either the date was written over an erasure
the paper blotted with some peculiar brownish
the me%orandum ia wiring oypos,ps the on ,rcd,t
claimed missing. There were some credits, he finds,
claimed by defendant which arc well founded, and
winch, were they not 30 completely surrounded by
ialsty and forgery, would undoubtedly challenge his
most serious attention; but when he finds much of
Soso
but come TO tho conclusion that ii MIR. Marley was
alive he would 0e able 10 explain these apparent dis
crepancies. After examining seratim the accounts
and exhibits which he believes have been forgerles
and other testimony IN the CASE Judge Van Brun
circumstances to which l have not alluded which
also tend 10 strengthen the conclusion to which
! have arrived, but this opinion has grown
10 such 4 length that / havo not time
TO discuss tholn. have not thought u
necessary TO advert to the testimony as to the inter.
views IN Connecticut, nor to tile interviews In New
York further than has been done. have not called
attention to the plaintiffs testimony because her eyl-
dence has added nothing 10 the strength the docu
mentary evidence. presented by her, much of which
has been entirely successfully impeac he'd. In con
clusion, can only say that think that have demon
stratcd beyond any reasonable doubt that the ma
tority OF the plaintiffs evidence is made up
oil falsihcd accounts, forgcrics and OF perjury
aud that plaintiff has attempted, under the
forms OF law, to steal from u dead mans estate
large sum OF money with holiness and skill seldom
equaled. II is but proper that should say that there
Is not the slightest to believe that plaintiffs
counsel or attorneys were at all of faleica.
ton o the accounts and checks which have detected
and am only sorry that the skill and care with which
tho case had prepared had been upon
more worthy cause The plaintiffs complaint must
be dismissed, with costs and extra allowance OF
". 900. The exhibits Ia this / will direct The
clerk TO retain until the further oil the Court"
This case, thus pronounced SO exceptionally remark
able by the Court, conducted the part OF plain
tin by Messrs. John A. Wright aud Albert Sckncy ana
on the part OF defendant by Mcssrs Barlow Laroque
IL Mcfarland