The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-11-10
A BLOW All BOGUS BAIL.

The Marine Court in the case OF ohm Aster against
Gotteb Neiss, declared Its fixed determination yes
tcrday break up the pcrncious practice OF giving
fictitious surcties upon bail bonds In that Court.
Judge McAdam taking this case as text, has written
quite an elaborate opinion, which Is given IN full
below.
W. Haynes johnson, an Attorney was retained by
the plaintiff to prosecute the defendant Tor alleged
assault johnson thereupon prepared affidavit IN
which ne presented tho wrongs Of his client In moro
serious manner tho clients or tho facts
Justified. After having his client to tho exag
gerated statement he drow undertaking upon ar
rest The client, being impecunious, was unable to
procure bail, whercupon johnson supplied tho surelics
himself The papers appearing regular upon thor
face tho undertaking was approved and an order for
the defendants arrest duly granted by justice OF
tins Court The defendant was taken
tody undor 1t by the sheriff, and was re-
leased alter giving tho required bal. SUISSE
qusntiy the plaintiffs Complaint dismissed, with
$50 ~ COSTS Tor which amount judgment entered
uganst the plaintiff, ana II renaIns wholly unpaid and
unbelievable. Search was made Tor the sureties upon
the plaintiffs undertaking, but they could not DO
found and tho deienuant claims that they fictitious
anu fraudulent. The defendant now moves To punish
tho plantns attorney for misconduct III giving such
bail One OF the surctles Is described in the unaer-
taking 'Chrstopher Sayles, OF No ll9 West Fiity
second street." No such person resides either there
anywhere else. he Is a mythical individual. WITH
no or habilailon. The other US
EDWARD Drump OF No 70 Greenwich Avenue,
never resded there, the place Indicated beng
lot. person oil the same pane, residing eisowhore
produced in court by Johnson as the surety bear
ing that namc but even be VAS not sure whether no
signed the Undertaking or not Ho was not positive
about the signatures. and testified that II he did sign
the undertaking The nature Or tho obligation assumed
not explained to nIm, aud that lie IS not able 10
pay the $lUU mentioned IN H. Another undertaking
gwen upon procuring an order Of arrest IN similar
action, obtained about The same time the
question, produced upon tho hearing Of tins APP
pitculion, and the name OF this same edward
Drumm" appears upon u US surety aud HIS residence
Is there stated 10 be No. IS SpriEg street. Drumm
never resdod there, ana Mr.. Hay johnson Is Tho
plaintiffs attorney IN that action also. II Is Clear
all tho proofs that the bail IS fictitious aud
fraudulent, ana that the plaintiff Is attorney knowingly
imposed ON the Court when he presented The UNDER
taking and procured Its approval such conduct, es-
pccialy upon tho part OF an officer OF the Court
highly unprocssona and censurabic and is punishable
contempt Of court Code Of Civii Procedure,
II. I'D vol, 9TH ed. X 81 ~ 04y sec 5O) The learned
profession oil tho law exacts from It's members much
higher standard OF professional ethics The plaintiff
Is Inso.vent anu tho surcies on his undertaking
iraudu lcHt. TINS Court condemns such practice, and
declares its liked determination 10 sumnAriiy punish
all sucn offenders, no matter who they The at
torncy viii, therefore, bc adudgcd guilty OF miscon-
duct ia Office, amt viii DO nned, as Tor con-
tempt of court, 800. the amount specified
In the undertaking $500 70 beng The amount
OF tho. deiendpnts judgment for costs aud the
balance, $50 IL, being the expense tne defendant
has been put to IN addition TO prosecuting
Tins proceeding) and The attorney VIII be impr soued
In the County Jail until the nno ID PAID.