The New York herald., 1879-10-23
THE COURTS.
The Oldest Case on the Supreme
Court Calendar.
LEGAL BATrLEDOOR AND SHUTYLECOCK
Benefit of a Little Law Experience to
an Accused Pickpocket

the litigation having been in progress for the last
twenty years. was tried yesterday for the fourth
timo before Judge Van Brunt. holding Supreme
Court Circuit. This last trial, however. possibly
may not terminate its legal longevity for possibly
It may take another round OF the circuits and again
puzzle the brains of the Court of Appeals in trying to
bring final determination the points at ISSUE The
plaintiffs in the action are Herman Gelpcke Co.,
ana the defendant William Z. Quentill. In Decem-
ber. 1859. Mr.. Quentll wrote from Bremen Ger
many. to Gelpcke. Kengen Reichelt. who were
then bankers in this city, asking them to open
credit for $50 900 In favor of Henry Rodeweld Co..
of New Orleans He stated In the letter that the lat
ter Arm to consign to him cotton and tobacco,
but that by his instructions Gepcke 4 Co. were
bound to accept the draft Of Rodeweld co.
though unaccompanied by bills of lading.
In January following Quentill wrote to Gelpcke
Co. revokng the letters of credit but stating that
should drafts be made in the meantime they should
charge the same to his account. Gelpcke 4 Co. re-
ceved this letter of revocation early in the ensuing
month. and wrote on the same day to Rodeweld &
Co., apprising them Of the facts Before this letter.
however, was written Rodeweld Co. had drawn on
Gelpcke Co. for $5. 900. and the day after the
receipt by Gelpcke Co. of tho letter of revocation.
bu. before Rodeweld & Co. knew of it. they had
drawn on Gelpcke Co. for $25,00O All these
drafts came to the hands Of Gelpcke & Co. subse-
quent to receiving tho lotter of revocation. After
Golpcke l. Co. had paid these drafts, aggregating
S3s 5000. Rodeweld Co.. who had drawn two sets Of
drafts upon the same consignment of cotton, failed
Tho present suit is brought to recover from Quen-
till the amount of these drafts. Judge Brady first
tried tho suit and dismissed the complaint. An ap-
peal taken to the General Term. Judges In
graham Barnard and Cardozo who then held that
sS IN TINS rs Ssor mSse sna
At this second trial verdict was
given in favor of the plaintiff fer the full amount
claimed. with interest. Another appeal was taken to
the Supreme Court. General Term. aud Judges Davis
aud Ingraham. who were tho bench. set aside the
verdict. A third trial followed. before Judge Van
Worst. who directed dismissal or tho complaint.
The OF legal batledoor and shuttecock still
kept up with undated vgor on both sides. Another
appeal was taken to the General Term, which Court
affirmed the last judgment. The plaintiffs were
still unsatsfed. aud carried tho to the
Court OF Appeals. which reversed tho last jldg-
ment and ordered new trial. 1t was held by three
Judges of the Court OF Appeals that matter of law
disagreeing in this view. concurred in granting
new trial on the ground that there were contro-
verted questions OF fact which should have been
FAVOR of affirming the judgment. and Judge Allen.
who also heard the argument died before de-
cision was reached ut is Seldom" said Judge
Van Brunt, in charging the jury yesterday,
"that have been called upon to instruct jury
upon q law 1t effects the facts disclosed by tho
evidence where have felt much embarrassment
and hesitation as do in presenting this to you
and that embarrassment does not arise in conse-
Quence Of the quantity quality scope OF the tes
tmony does proceed from the intricacy Of the
questions OF law under the decision OF the Court OF
Appeals in respect to this that am called upon
to lay down for your guidance although as to many
Of them / necessarily dissent from the Court from
which am bound to take the law for the purposes
of this case; but my embarrassment arises in find
ing q question OF fact to submit TO the jury When
tns case was Deicre rne court OF appeals they hela
drafts and consignments which it was necessary
should submit to you for your consideration. and
they arrived at that conclusion. in my judgment,
from the fact that it impossible from the record
rs 1t went to them for them to fix and determine
the relations between tho accounts current which
had becn offered in evidence and the
oral evidence which introduced upon
the trial. and for that reason that it ought have
been lott to the jury to solve the difficulties which
they unable to solve for themselves. have
been unable to find any dispute or discrepancy in
origin, history to any matter connected there
with. 1t it not tor the opinion of the Appel
whole issues involved matter OF law. as can
dispute of fact, and 1t seems to me that it could
After % these preliminary MIN remarks Judge Van Brunt
recited ut length the facts ana then charged that
Gepcke Co. were not required to use the telegraph
to New Orleans for rcvokng the letters OF credit as
tho telegraph had not been used by Quentill in noti
flying the plaintiffs. Though then there was no At
town from London. would have sent his
revocation four days earlier and thus fore
.s sd fan a' aSoas oS 5 hs drawn drafts against
y consignment OF tobacco which was stopped in
transitu by creditors Of Rodewe Co.. he charged.
should be excluded. He thought 1t was question
OF law whether the merchandise should be credited
70 the merchandise account Upon counsel upon
considered. the Judge said he thought they
would have to agree that tho only questions
In the case were questions OF law. After
by counsel TINT verdict should be directed
and the exceptions heard ut tho General Term thus
showing determination on the part OF the creditors
or Gelpcke Il Co.. who really the present plain
tins-this firm having failed since the commence
meht Of the suit-to continue tire litigation. A
verdict was directed for S29477 Co. with the further
sum Of $40,296 76 for interest, making aggregate
Of $69.773 50. Messrs Herman Roelker aud A. j.
vanderpoel appeared for the plaintiffs and William
Allen Butler for tho defendant.
ONE TAKEN AND THE OTHER LEFT.
A solf-satisAed. dark visaged young man. who
gave the name Of George Mitchell. said be known
to the police. was charged, in the Court OF General
Sessions. yesterday with picking the pocket of Law
rcnce Mcmahon. ut Madison Square Garden. on the
10th inst. Tho prisoner, who had no counsel. said
ho desired to defend himself having had some expc-
rienco In law matters. Nevertheless. Judge Cowing
assigned Mr.. TompkiLs to advise with the accused
From the statement of the complainant 1t appeared
that he formerly kept saloon at the corner OF 116h
street aud Third avenue, but moved to Nyack about
three years ago. On tho night of the 10th inst.
he wont to the walking match and, while in
vest pocket and In twinkling his gold watch had
disappeared. Turning quickly, he saw Mitchel's
saw that his watch was still attached to the chain.
which Ind not been removed. The prisoner thcn
cooliy arose to cross-cxamne the complainant, and
put series OF questions TO him as TO what occurred
before the arrest was made. Tho complainant
said he did not SEQ the prisoners hand IN his pocket
'Now. then.' inquired the accused. with refreshing
impudence. "after simmoring your evidence down
to fnc point. is 1t not true that about all that re-
mains OF 1t is that you found your watch dangling
by the chainY' II suppose so." replied McMahon.
Judge Cowing intimated that at most the prisoner
could only be convicted OF an attempt at larceny
Delighted with his progress the prisoner asked tho
complainant whether he had not offered TO settle tho
caso for $50. mo. SIR" replied Mr. McMahon,
warmly, at In not true. This is all manufactured
Tho accused declined to take the stand III his own
behalf and Mr.. Tompkps briefly summed up for the
defence. Tho jury returned verdict OF not guilty
Assistant District Attorney Bell intimatcd that
Mitchell had been several times In prison. but ho
had taken the stand he could show that fact
After wholesome warning from Judge Cowing the
prisoner discharged.
James w. Clarke who said he q wood carver