The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-04-14
THE COURTS.
Post.Dated Checks and Orders
Legally Identical.
D1sPossEss PROCEEDINGS.
Marine Court Judges Relieved from Isiuing
Ejeetment Warrants. I'D


Az important decision, and one Of interest y ~
legal profession, has been handsd down In tho Cens
OF Appeals in the case OF Carl Lesser alleged con.
ndsncs man. who made apphcasion % the cours
through Mr.. William r. Kn.ztng, his counsel, 70 b
discharged from the rrlson upon the eround of
the ilicgaty OF hts conviction In having been oon-
vcted OF false pretsnces before Judge Gtldsrslssvss
In the Court General Sessions. and sentenced %
two ycars imprisonment. 1t appeared upon the trial
that the prisoner and . confederate purchased
some goods, giving In payment post-dassd
check subsequently, turned OUT 70 20 worthless
Mr. Knitting raised The point that the giving Of
post.datod cneck 10 noshing more than promiss =
pay. and tina, as the false representation complansa
Of vas promissory in It's nature u could not b sne
foundation OF criminal charge. Il VA noA ne
claimed false representation 70 an existing facA
which 10 one Of the essential elements Of the orim@
District Attorney Phelps and Assistant District Al.
torney Russell Tor the people, took The ground that
the presentation OF check upon the purchaser 81
goods for cash representation thas u
good and valid order for ths named IN ana thas
such sum is deposit at the bank 10 meet u the
Court Of Appeals now afarms the conviction OF the
Court below. Tue opinion OF Judge RapaAlo, owing
70 the important legal point invoved Is given beiow
In full sft
The check witch was passed on upon the complaln-
ant dated on the 20th Of August the uansac1on
taking place the 2Sth, and the detcnce pl aced
oneck does constitute representation that the
money 20 II IL in the bank time Of delivery
10 there al tho maturity Of the check Ii there has
been representations made except by tho delivery
q se oo s vs
representation that the money was In The
baak, the point which the prisoners counsel
culnstancs that tho check was not drawn ~ me
prisoner out ny third party. and vas posl.dAsed.
case turns upon the point argued The indicsmens
charges that the prisoner represented among osnos
nss 'n q ms vao
IL was not good or Of any vaius what.
ever The evidence Of the prosscusrix VA. vas
came together her residence, and alter BARGAINING
Tor tho goods and agreeing upon the price Melville
them leaving the prisoner there thai the prtsonsa
represented Mevo ~ man IN business, having I've
stores, &C.; that Melville returned With the cheek.
anu Il the time Of passing Cd prosecutrix and OBJ
tanning the g0ods. answer 70 remark Of the pros
SAID. ii. "a TOO late 10 90 10 the bank to-day"
ut being then nali-past three ~ the sltsl.
noon); that ~ the same Time the prisoner saio
that the check good and also that Sc'nbach ths
maker of the cheek, mad business The sister tessl
ned that 10 her remark about the date Mol
vile said that was TOO late TO 20 70 the bank and %
dated the tomorrow. Nosach person A. the
OF the check kept any account 10 the uank on
thai the cneck was worthIesA Tns circumstances
tended 70 show that the transaction was device 20
defraud the prosecutrx Of her goods and that Aevs
aud the prisoner acting concer They togesher
took the goods away. NO explanation or defence
was offered by tho prisoner the trial, nor did ns
show that there was aay such person ~ Stsinbaen
or wuas were hrs own relations With Melville, but
relied wholly on the fact that the check was poes-
dated. Undcr the CIRCUMSTANCES we think that she
evidence was suacieut 10 Justify finding that me
prisoner that the check good and The
maker man OF substance. white he knew that u was
worthless aud ta,so token got up Tor the pur.
pose OF dolraudinG the psosecutr'x ana thai ne aud
Melville were confedcratcs ana Jointly obtained the
I'M mr. hA mr. Qnn
suDm,sted to tho jury and moro legal N
the CONVICTION Tue Judgment should % affirmed
PROCEEDINGS In EJECTMENT.
Mr.. William H. Crosby, largo real estate owner
brough, suit for pcromptory msndamus through his
counsel Mr. Elliott and ElDridgs r. Gerry, 70 compel
Judge McAdam, OF tho Marine Court, 10 issue war.
ran. In dispossossory prooood,ngs Judge AcAdam
declined 70 at IN proceedings unless the appl-
cant showed shere we're no judges of the district
courts willing 70 do 80. Tho motion for mandamns
came on before Judge Douohus,in Supreme Court
Chambers Mr. Elliott y. Shepard, appearing for the
Marine Court Judgss-this being Test case and in-
Guiding all the Mariuo Court Judgos-conteudsd thas
the statues governing SUCH mandatory
that tue Marine Cours judges had discresion 10 re-
fuse 70 hear these osse. wnicn thsy nad resaoa.oy
with other business aud that 10 cneumoer thsir cal.
endars with these dspossessory cases would pracs':
cxy destroy usefulness vi tho Court Tor tigaed
business and deprive tho district courts Of class Ut
business which they specially organized " trans
ACT Mr. Gerry, Tor the rcAtor, maintained tnat the
statute was mandatory and that the judges or lhs
Marine Court had discretion IN the matter; thai
those Judges were more 70 nsaa ana as.er.
OF cases Than tho district judges and that htganu
the right avail themselves OF the superior lsaSn.
ing OF that Bench. Judge Dou0hue has decided that
II Is discretionary with the Marine Court judges -
hear these cases. and refused 70 grant the wns Of
mandAmua a@NNN
LAWYER THERASsON'S TRIAL.