New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-04-24
The COURTS.
END OF A SUIT OVER A PAPER.

END We n QUIZ WEN n Al Xiv
MRS. BYRNEs RELATIONS To THE DRAMATIC NEWS
-JUDGE LARREMORE's DECISION.
The suit Of Mrs. Byrne against Joshua Hart,
Charles E Byrne and A. IL Humme, set aside on the
ground conspiracy the agreement by which the own
erabip Of The Dramatic Meas transferred on Octo
Der 8, 1879, was concluded yesterday before Judge
Larrenore in thu Court OF Common Pleas, Equity Term
The settled by the defence allowing the agree
ment to be set aside Mrs. Bye is restored to the
relation she held to the paper at the time of the agree
ment. The question of original ownership, which the
plaintiff also sought to have decided not passed
upon the Court holding should be brought before
y law court action for damages replevin.
After some preliminary talk, Mr.. Howe said: eve
have determined for the defendant Hart at this stage 10
close the defence This action for relief tie extent
tina: the instrument OF sale in question should be ad
judged@Oid. No matter what means the plaintiff has
taken assa the document and the way Which 1t Is
alleged have been obtained, would dignity these
asperEons worthy Of reply in this tribunal They are
false untrue deliberately untrue We might have
trsdcted all the testimony given to agperse the charac
ter OF the Defendants but not before jury and
II destroy all the testimony yet we have agreed 10
grant the decree. This does affect the ownership Of
the paper end II Mrs. Hart rs the owner it only be
determined in another court"
Mr. Townsend, ii, his reply. said We did ASK more
than granted byl the decree offered The plaintiff has
positively thas the paper hers and against her
Mrs. Hart has no claim. Mrs Hart has not appeared
here As 70 tho wish of the defence to repe no charges
the complaint has not been changed, and yet when
last here 1t deemed essential for OF the de-
PENDANTS clear his character Here Mr. Hart Mr..
Hummel and Mr.. Byrne, neither Of whom thinks 1t
seatia dignity to answer when charged with ali
that contemplate. This lady not afraid OF vitu
pera1on iu stating her case. but Mr.. Hart does
not appear TO be examined. Here arc three mcn
charged on nfadavits that systematically they
GOT together and robbed this plainuR OF her
kl.w 80 and vD.u
the stand and denying the charge Mr. Byrne, one 0f
the persons CHARGED here has never pe In even an an
name. There is an amount OF depravtY In this case
beginning They acknowledge that they did con
spire. We unfortunate II get remedy OK.
S %6ere s the WSCie mater viii cB On o
Mr. Townsend said further, IN the course OF his
summed up for the defence tSaI the counsel for the
Ss any Conspiracy sp" was made to deprive
Byrne o. her property: They ,nnSt have
would not have had ali their witnesses there Mr..
Townsend added: Mrs; Byrne gives evidence that she
own money, borrowed more, ana gave It all 70 her
husband to star, the paper She supposed she was the
drawn ny by Hart to protect her lnerests Her Own
to this IL substanaied by all the evidence
Are they not ready TO answer i'll Three men arc charged
Snsbsnd Who had outraged her IN every wSy-aSd they
SIT down aud teSe away her paper, her property.
more cO6tetDptibie conspiracy never
brought into Court ThoSe should lie ashamed II
they cannot ct up and aLsWer these Statements. Be
they acknowledge the conspiracy are not
titled ret the paper against Byrne aud Hart We
ought not left to Ud who the owners. II
this Court cannot detcT0lne the Ownership another
Court WILL
judge larrsnnore gave I'm immediate decision. He
said: thDktt 10 cOuceded by both sldes at least t
Is my opinion that II the agreement OF October had
never been made there would have been In n
court OF equity. suit for damages aud repovin wonld
have been brought. The sole ground here ia the fraud
practIscd upon the plaintiff, her interest taken and
transferred 10 Hart by setting ASIDE OF the agree
meEt this s outside although In the conspiracy
ter there questionable facts. What
the circumstances | do not inquire. for
am relieved from the consideration Of by the
parties agreeing TO Obterate the paper. Mrs ByTne Is
recgaed to the position she had last FAIL Her state
melt upon examination about tho Dor
rOWed from Mr.. SfakOBch very frank. She stated
that she borrowed the money 10 start clearinghouse
tail how the money went into the paper IL Is
not shown whether tier husband used II gave
It 20 him The question Of original ownership will
main Just where The only Judgment TO be given
that agreement ts aside without prejudice 10
either party and without costs.