New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-10-23
THE COURTS.
AcAsE TWENTY YEARS IN COURT.


A CURIOUS DILEMMA OF JUDGE VAN BRUNr-AN-
OTHER APPEAL TO BE TAKEN.
A case that has been pending In the SUI
preue Court for nearly twenty years was brought 70
trial for-he fourth time yesterday before Judge van
Bruu In Supreme Court Circuit The title OF the cause
was Herman Gelpcke and others against William r.
ouenteIl Gelpcke Kengen Rechelt, bankers, OF tins
eitv In December 1859. received from the defendant
then IN Bremen Germany. request that they should
open credit for $4,000 in favor OF Henry Rode
Co. OF Ncw-Orleans La The drafts Of the latter firm
TO be accepted by Gepcke Co, even though IN
accompanied by bills aing for the cotton ana 10
bacco which the New-Orleans hrm were To consgn 70
Mr. Quente The letters OF credit were revoked by MI
ouenteu on January Is 1850 but he eonsented that
drafts made in the time should be charged TO his
account on February 8. 500. the day the revocation
received by Gepcke Co.. they gave notice OF II 70
the New-Or.eans firm But before Rodewad Co had
received this notice they had drawn Gepcko Co.
drafts amounting s33 OOO These received after
February g. but were paid by Gelpcke Co. The New
Orleans firm afterward failed. and Gepcke Co. sued
MT iente for the amount OF the draftl
Justice Brady on TIE trial dismissed the case II
was sent back trial by the General Term ana
tn paufin Tor the amount claimed. The General Term
this action also aud the third trial wa, oelore
Judge Van Worst IN lss4 HIS tulluS GlsnlsstnE ,
complaint sustained by tine General Ieful Dut me
Court OF Appeals ovcrruea and ordered another trla
although two OF the judges were IN favor Oi sustaining
The judgment OF tue lower courts.
Judge Nau bIunt, ~ charging the lurt yesterday eu
Thai he had seldom felt sSucn IN pre-
senting "a case 20 jury "And that embarrassing
ne continued. does NOT arise Ia consequence or the
quantity. quality scope of the testimony nor does II
proceed the lrlcacf OF the questions o aN uhItf
the OF the Court az Appeals M respect 10 'h-
case, that called upon 10 Law down FOR your Gud-
ance. although % many of them necessarily dissent
from from which bound 90 tfSe the law
the purposes OF this case hut ms emhairtssneg
arises finding question 0i iact TO submit ~ the jury
Nnen ths before Toe tOurt OF Appeals iht4
hello that there question OF fact relating % lheAe
drafts and lgumeuts which % was necessary should
a. that conclusion. my Judgment. from TIE iact tla
II impossible the ri. a. o. went 40 To thf
for them 90 d and left tAe relation between ihe
which have ueen DAtrcI in evidence
and the Oral evidence which reduced anon the
tra aud 10 ought To have peen icit 10
Tue iury solve difficulties ucl ihcN we're ulaoie
q solve themselves" The Judge SAID tlat ne was
not met ~ the same difficulties On tnis trial. ana
found uottIng submit to the jury SUI ne
was bound hy the decision of The Court 81
Auneals which SAID that be must submit the
jury. The counsel ou both sl4cs iel-ccd ie
Jldge of his embarrassment oy conserving that ne
should order di-nosnG of the eases ana they
would tleu carry another appeal. a FeT-
dict FOR The plaintiff lr ~69775 49, be amount OF claim
interest accordingly INJECTED