The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-04-21

Of his friend the other side Brother Beach, should
the proposition commend itself TO tho Judgment OF the
Judge wall,cs ssid:-"whiIc approve the motives
OF counsel In making the proposition, yet IN view OF
It's very novelty and the difculty OF deciding upon
the merits and IN fact the legal difficulties surrounding
IL, . sls, Passpoas my opinion on u I'll tho Court
Nj. Beach then proceeded with his summing up,
and referred IN his opening 10 the graphic and
had pictured his client, Mr.. Park, The defendant
IN tho SUIT, 40 the arch swinder who had subsl-
died all England But he ielt convinced that the sober
second thought OF the jury would recognize tho fact that
his friend Stoughton WINS not tho Samson who could
pull down In ruins she temple OF honest mans rep
utalion. Brother Soughon had said that Mr. schcnck
deceived by Park; General Schenck, on the con-
trary sworc that no was not deceived In Park; that
confidence in his honor and his honesty, aud
That he had the same perfect reliance
IN both to-day General schenck testified that he bad
bought his interest the mine with his eyes wdc
open, and that his strongest Inducements 70 buy mad
arisen rather from the English accounts OF the mine
than from any representations Mr. Park had ever MADE
10 him. General Schencks testimony counsel argued
was complete exoneraton OF Mr. Park from all mis-
representation exaggeraon as TO the value OF tho
nine These wholesale misrcpresentations ~ oppos-
ing counsel he said example oil how the whoio
case had been conducted by thc other sue 1ounse'
commended That the shareholders mako the directors
the corporation does not mako thcm-tne "
rectors tho agents and trustees OF :he
shareholders, and there Is no truseeship existing
as between company and directors IL Is incumbent
on the plaintiffs TO prove all the acts going TO make up
the ingredients OF the allegation OF fraud and false
representation, Ind that such representation was
made with intent 10 deceive IL was also necessary 10
prove that the party purchasing believed the repre-
sentations made be or that he had acted IN
belief In making the purchase. Fraud must not
be presumed. Fraud in case OF this nature must
always bc proven. They were told that Baron Grant
all the newspapers had been subsidized and that
money was used freely 10 secure influential
parties 10 take part in this fraudulent enterprise
But even II this proven, might II not suggested
counsel be as with honest desire TO push
forward an honest enterprise as dishonest desire TO
push on a dishonest The defendant Park was
placed In position where his all was AZ stake, and
verdict should be gwen against him on any but the
most direct and positive evidence OF his guilt Mr..
Beach had concluded At the rising OF the court
Adjourned till Monday.
HOYT, SPRAGUE & CO.'S ASSETS.
When the Arm OF Hoyt, sprugue 4 Co tailed several
banks OF Providence, r. l., held claims against them
for advances to the extent OF $6o00 00 These loans
were secured by n mortgage, on tho bond accompany
ing which Josiah Chaplin appeared as principal and
Edwin Hoyt aud several Others partners IN the firm
OF Hoyi, Spraguc Il Co., as cobondsmen. The bank
claims we're divided as folows:-The City Savings
Bank 100000; Franklin Institution for Savings
$3.50 600; Union Savings Bank, $50, 600; Cranston
Savings Bank, 100, 600; the Peoples Savings Bank,
500 OO0 All these claimed 10 como 10 as general
creditors and suit in which Dir. Julard, the re-
ceiver was made party, was brought TO Test This
question. The referee, Mr. William r. Dixon, has now
decided that the banks cannot como IN IS general cred
itors the firm, and holds That such creditors must
be first pad.