Litchfield enquirer., 1878-03-28

slOO,264.71
 Received payment by note on demand for One hum dred Thousand Dollars, and check for Two Hundred and Sixty four dollars and Seventy one cents
 May lst, 1872. J. H. INGERSOLL.
 On the next day, May 2d. 1872, the parties again met at the Defendants office and the $1OO, 900 note was exchanged for three notes one for $l6, 800, one for $13, 500, which have since been paid; and one for $70,0OO, on which as herein before stated $5, 781 O3 is still there
 Thus much being proved the Plaintiff in or der to avoid the effect of this settlement and of his receipts attempts to show that the settle ment and receipts were obtained by fraudulent representations.
 It was also suggested that something like duress was practiced upon him but the proof falls quite short of such duress as can in law avail the Plaintiff
 On the day after the settlement the parties met and amicably, exchanged the $10O, 900 note: for three others, and there does not ap- pear at this second meeting to have been any complaint of the settlement on the contrary,
 
 It appears in evidence that the Defendant said at the time of the settlement that he had p0id $112, 800 to one Barbour to carry through the Legislature at Albany an appropriation in which the Plaintiff was interested, and the $112, 900 charged by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in the above account as cash, was for the money so paid the Plaintiff allowed this charge under the belief that this sum $112, 500 had been actually paid by the Defendant in procuring the appropriation referred to, and the Plaintiff now claims, that since the settle ment, he has ascertained, that it is not true that the Defendant expended the $112, 800 in the manner as stated; and he therefore claims that the settlement should be set aside and thathe is entitled to recover the balance which would be due him on the account, if he had not allowed this false charge; and here lies the whole contest between the parties. ...
 By making this claim the Plaintiff invites me into field of enquiry by no means pleas ant but 1 cannot escape the duty of going in to the enquiry so far at least as to ascertain in
  nocent party suffering under fraud; if I find he is so he is entitled to redress; but if it turns out that both the Plaintiff and Defendant in respect to this $112, 800 were participants in a corrupt transaction, the Plaintiff on familiar principles of law cannot have the laws help, however much in such matters the Defend ant may have been guilty of falsehood; for the law on principles of public policy, refuses it's interference to settle rights growing out of H. legal transactions between participants in such transactions. There are then two ques- tions to be settled, one whether the Defendants assertion is untrue that he paid the $112, 800 to procure the Court House appropriation;and, secondly, is the Plaintiff an innocent party so as to be entitled to relief The following facts appeared in evidence which directly or indi- rectly bear upon these questions.
 In the winter of 1871 the Defendant was member of the Senate in Albany and the Plaintiff was commissioner for building a Court House for the County of New York, and treasurer of that commission. The Defendant in the course of the winter informed the Plain | tiff ''that an appropriation of $750, 900 would be obtained to be expended by that commis- sion and that it would cost 15 per cent. of that amount, and that the plaintiff must pay that amount to him, as large amount of money had to be used in the legislature that season to get things through"
 The Plaintiff expressed no dissent to this arrangement, both parties understanding that the 15 per cent. was to be corruptly expended in procuring the passage through the legisla- lature of the appropriation, and that the $750, 900 when obtained by the commission was to be to large extent corruptly divided up among the commissioners and other asso- ciates.
 On the 17th April, 1871, bill passed the the assembly appropriating $75O, ,0OO for the building of the Court House, the bill passed the Senate, April 18th, and on that day the Plaintiff gave his check to the Defendants agent for $10O,0O0. This is the $1OO, 900 which in the foregoing account is charged by the Plaintiff to the Defendant under date April 18th, 1871 ,and in regard to it find that it was gwen in pursuance of the arrangement herein before referred to, to allow 15 per cent. on the