The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-07-02
THE COURTS.
A Curious Suit and Its Contradictory
Allegations.
Mr.. JOHN BROUGHAM'S ANNUITY.
Train Wrecking as an Outlet for Juvenile
Hilarty.

Some curious facts wero elected In decision gwen
yesterday by Judge Van Hoesen in re court OF
Common Pleas. In a suit brought by nay" ona o.
Perrin against Andrew Anderson. snS winch came
before him on q motion vacats anorder OF arrest
against the defendant The actio4 Is orouen' 20 re-
cover the possession Of certain rnture a'iegea 10
have been wrongiuiy taken anf detained ov the de-
tendabt, and the arrest was fan'ea on tho GROUND
that the defendant had rewved, concealed or dis
posed OF the property forthe purpose OF prevent
iuu its being taken loy the Sheriff 10
deprive the plaintiff OF tho benefit Of the
same Anderson, Y nm shidavt presented
on tho motion ssutss that on the LIST Of last March
Perrin came 10 No 10 West Seventeenth street, and
represepsnt himseras married man. hired apart
monts. cons,st,ug 4 three rooms, and afterward
moved into The ayArtments with woman whom tho
opponent then Supposed 10 be the plaintiffs wife, and
also brought tire tho furniture which forms the
boss Of this ulion. The parties continued TO reside
there until ~ 9th Of April, when As Anderson further
states he dlcovored that they not married, but
that on 20 contrary. Perrin had vile living in
another oil the city. On tbs date last mentioned
DO. csie to the deponent and said ne
iurpitrs h,mscf nor did he want the
womb 10 have 1t, ss he had quarrciled with her. and
hs 10 SspSnsu S Sss S
pGent take bill OF sale Of the properly, executed
one Horace E.payson and ratified and delivered
~ the plaintiff, The same being signed by Payson as
Is further aliegsd because Perrin did not want hts
name connected savith the affair In case the woman
made any trouble ABOUT the property. Alter this
transaclion nothing urther done about the matter
until the bringing Of suit BY the woman for the re-
Perrin, AMI Under regular repIevn proceedings tho
goods were taken from The deponent; Dut after some
anu dis continued and order Gu tered directing Inc
property to be returned - the Opponent. The furn
lure mad thus become an expensive luxury, nnd be.
!eving that the only way 10 get rio OF tue in.
tebtedpess incurred on account Of it was 10 sell,
that course was .aken ana, as the dcponcnt ur'her
states under judcious advice and Ia entire ignorance
intent oil injury 10 TIRE painttf He says that Per-
rim never demanded the goods until alter tue SALE
and That the action is malicious An AFFIDAVIT Is also
made by the dcponent's wilc tho same effect and
others by tho Opponents counsel ana the auotionecr
mr. Perrin, IN opposition, statesthat he hired the
apartments In question for the OF friend and her
sister ana bought the furniture Tor thcm; he never
moved into the apartments nor did he In any
manner represent or intimate 10 any ono that he
intended. he never resided there in any manner and
never spent = night there. he paid the rent adj
vance, and IN the sary part OF April told the decnd
ant that he did not want the apartment aor the LIST
OF May ensuing. Then follows general denial OF tho
statements the teendunt relative the bal, Of
Hesays that he cold him That he thought he would
il he would take charge Of II and sell It
Tor MIN. The dsfenoant asked him how
ana he answered ABOUT SIS The defendant also asked
HIM how much he would take Tor II anu expressed
wish 10 buy it, aud said mat II ne did buy he
would sell IL 10 some one else anu hand him Inc
proceeds The plaintiff then told him that he would
give him q Oil Of sAls ana would require ok
ecuto mortgage on the property M security. do
consented TO do this but aterwArd refused to sign
refused 10 give back The bill Of sale, saying
he not child, and retained both tho bill oil sale
and tho mortgage In conclusion. Mr. Perrin repes
any intlmaion insinuation In the defsndant's af
davis OF any hing wrong ia his conduct whole
natter ana denies every allegation OF on
his part Mr.. payson also denies that tbeIr any
tang wrong nbout H. Judge Van Hoescn, In mis- 40.
cision gwen yesterday, says, "rh,s motion turns
upon question OF crsdulty. Both parties, pisintif
and defendant have, as usual maze out perfect cases
SO lar W. positive swcsring will accomplish
that end.' he adds that he some cir
cumstances that appear 10 be irreconcilable with
tho statement that tho furniture gwen Ander
son absolutely, and th1 otner hand he has doubts
as 70 the seg atoms OF Perrin that had trouble
with the woman. He says:-'l susp sct the truth TO
DO that Perrin mad Quarroiled with the woman had
determined 10 take tho furniture away irvm hers that
he wanted Anderson to claim The ownership OF tho
property In ofder 10 defeat the claims OF
chip which the woman might set up: that Anderson
agreed ~ ard him by pretending 10 own The urBure
shat the bill oil sale accordingly made to Ander-
son by Payson, PERKINS, fricEd; that Anderson, be-
hevtng that dread OF exposure would prevent Perrin
from asserting title 10 the furniture, no sooner
and determined not only TO Keep IL from the woman
but from Perrin aiso that he therefore declinud 10
execute cnAttsi mortgage the properly and sold
" NJ auction with intent 10 deprive Perrin VI andto
place beyond the reach OF legal process. For tLs
anderson Is iiubio to arrest" Judge Van Hoesen
says IN conclusion, that he Will not decide the matter
but orders reference TO examine the parties respect.
Ing the agreement aud tho circumstances under
which 10 was made.