The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-08-07

Countess Heinruch'S Famous Suit
Against the Late Dan Marley.
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT.
The Evidence Made Up Of Fasifed Ac-
counts. Forgeres and Perjury.
GARBAGE IN THE LOWER BAY

The now famous case OF Catharine Nesta Ennismore
Hicks, known the Countess Heinruch. against
Robert Martin, which tried time since te.
fore Judge Van brunt, in the Special Term OF the
Supreme Court, and reported in the HERALD was do
cded yesterday 1t appeared on that trial that long
Course Of dealings had taken place between the late
Dan Marley, q well-known furniture dealer Broad
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 s14,7oo After Mr. Marley's
death his executor Mr. Martin, the defendant iD this
case, sought to enforce payment OF this bond. The
Countess then brought present equity suit restrain
the prosecution OF the suit tho bond ana to have
judgment in her favor for SAC 600 balance OF account
besides largo damages Upon the trial 1t claimed
on her behalf that her n0n-indcbtedness on the bond
and the opposite balance which she drow her favor
would be found to be verified and substantated by a
fair statement Of the accounts between her and
Marley, and that the state OF facts on which
the executor sought 10 enforce his side OF
the case 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
hcd that Mt S. L. n Barlow counsel for Marley,
had examined the accounts on which the balance in
favor OF Marley based, and that Marley had in.
formed her that 1t was by the advice OF Mr.. Barlow
that she was sold out The clam Of the defence was
that some Of the statements OF accounts and exhibits
on which she sought sustain her side OF the case
were forgeries, ana Mr. Barlow testified to his
alleged action in the matter that she had to come to
him while he was counsel for Mr Marley, and that
alter he had heard her statement gwen her credi,
for every payment which she claimed 10 have made no
still found her In debt TO Mr. Marley to the amour.
for which the bond had been given; that any ad-
woe he may have given Mr.. Marley he acted only in
accordance with his strict duty as his counsel, and
n fhnr hnfnU hnft
Judge Van Brunt, III his opinion, after pronouncpg
the case one OF tho most remarkable that has ever
come under his observation, and that he knows
mono in the books which exces II In holiness
OF conception or IN the skill with which much
say that upon the trial the plaintiff presented
4 case which, far the accounts between
the parties were concerned seemed to be, when tho
case was submitted to him for decision, almost I'M
Prcgnaole but careful examination OF the evidence
mad shown beyond any question that the majority OF
that evidence had been made up OF iasled accounts,
OF forgcrics and OF perjury and prepared with much
art as TO entirely escape the attention OF the counsel
for tho defendants The thing that attracted the
Judges attention in forming his judgment was that
almost every paper that was presented by the plaintiff
upon which claim Tor credit mot allowed by the
deiendunt) was founded, muiiated e.
spect-cither the date was written over erasure,
the paper blotted with some peculiar brownlsh
the memorandum in wiring opposite the credit
Claimed missing. There were some credits, he finds,
claimed by defendant which arc well founded, and
which, were they not SO completely surrounded by
fasity and forgery, would undoubtedly challenge his
most serious attention; but when no finds much
the plaintiffs case conceived in iniquity, he cannot
but come 10 tho conclusion that ii Mr.. Marley was
alive he would be able 10 explain these apparent dis.
crepanceS. After examining seriatim the accounts
and exhibits which he believes to have been torgeres
and other testimony IN the case, Judge Van Brunt
cludes his opinion as oliows-.'lhere many other
circumstances TO which have not alluded which
also tend 10 strengthen the conclusion to which
] bave arrived, but this opinion has grown
20 such length that havo not time
to discuss them. have not thought II
necessary 10 advert TO the testimony to the inter-
views 10 Connecticut nor as to the interviews In New
York further than has been done | have not called
attention to the plaintiffs testimony because her evi-
dence has added nothing TO the strength OF tho docu-
mentars evidence. presented by her, much of which
has been entirely successfully impeached. In con
cuson, can only say that think that have demon
straed beyond any reasonable doubt that the na-
tority OF the plaintiffs evidence is made up
Of falsihcd accounts forgerics and OF perjury
and that plaintiff has attempted, under the
forms OF law, to steal from dead mans estate
large sum oil money with holiness and skill seldom
equaed. II is but proper that should say there
Is not the slightest reason to believe that the plaintiffs
counsel or attorneys were at all of the fals flea
ton oi the accounts and checks which have detected
aud am only sorry that the skill and with which
the case had been prepared had not been
more worthy cause. The plaintln's complaint must
be dismissed, with costs and extra allowance of
clerk TO retain until the further order OF the Court"
This case, thus pronounced so exceptionally remark
able by the Court conducted on the part OF plain
TIL by Messrs John A. Wright aud Albert Sckncy, ana
GU the part Of defendant by Messrs Barlow, Laroque
Mcfarland.