The daily gazette., 1882-12-07
DIVIDED--SIX TO FIVE.
THE jury IN THE SANDERS
CASE STILL OUT.
UNDER LOCK AND KEY ALL NIGHT
Coe vs.. English ct nj. Occupying the At
tention Of the Court--A Matter OF Few
Dollars.

At the opening of court yesterday after
noon, Chief Justice Comegys began his
charge 10 the jury bearing the Sanders case,
speaking for au hour and half. He began
as follows:
Gentlemen Of the Jury 1t no doubt ap-
pears TO you that the trial-of this case has
occupied very unnecessary length of time
and perhaps 1t might have been disposed Of
by the counsel In shorter period. But the
reason why seven days have been already
consumed is that the case is one of inquiry
into transactions extending over several
years and which are alleged by the de-
fcndant to be fraudulent--it being the ex-
| perience of courts that cases of alleged
fraud requires greater time for their dis
posal than most others, because fraud
usually consists of a variety Of circumstances,
many OF them secret or occult, which
can only be entirely revealed after long
| and tedious examination Of witnesses.
As one rarely enters upon a career OF fraud
with respect to creditors without endeavor-
Ing to forecast and provide against circum-
| stances and occasions likely to expose his
| artihce, II is generally extrem / difficult to
obtain the necessary proof to sustain a pro.
ceeding to defeat It, aud when obtained IL is
found, In the vast majority Of cases, to con-
sist Of multitude and variety OF isolated
facts requiring, necessarily, the production
OF many witnesses.
Notwithstanding the great consumption
OF time In this case, so far, still the question
remains the single one announced iu the
early part Of the trial whether or not the
property In controversy In this case was, al
the time of the seizure OF 1t by the defend
ant, the property of James A. Sanders"
After recitlng the several counts in the
suit and explaining them the Chief Justice
says :
Concerning the facts no details of ex-
animation will be entered npon, for the
reason that they are In themselves not at all
obscure or doubtful; though what they may
mean is of the very essence of this case. II
is your province and not ours to decide
with respect to their Significance; it is ours
to tell you the law to which you must apply
them"
The facts as adduced In the testimony are
recited briefly down TO the time OF the sale
OF the goods by Sheriff Clark when the
Court continued:
"ihe appraisement was something over
$4,000. 1his levy osure and sa Q were
treated by the plaintiff as being an invasion
Of his rights, as indeed they were If he the
bona ttte owner of the goods seized and the
tenant of the store locked up; aud to re-
cover compensation for his wrong he
brought the action you are now trying.
The Sheriff is resisting that action and it has
been shown that he was Unidentified by his
execution plaintiffs before he took any steps
under the writs and also that he was nOIi-
lied by the plaintiff in this action not to
meddle or interfere with the goods at
his peril; the goods being claimed as
The goods of the plaintiff aud the
ownership of them by the defendant in HE
writs James A. Sanders denied. The Sheriff
acted, therefore, with his eyes open to the
peril threatened, and If you think him not
justified in his course by the facts of the
case as developed In the testimony of the
witnesses he must abide the consequences
of his act. There is no lack Of testimony
So far as those of the plaintiffs witnesses,
who claim to be cognizant of the fact are
concerned, that the transactions which oc-
Cured between James A. Sanders, Mary E.
Sanders, h. Bertha Sanders and the plain
tiff, Henry L. Sanders, were fair, honest,
bona tide acts In all respects. Certainly
they apparently are unsuspicious (though
somewhat singuar) considered in the light
OF the testimony alone. II you give credit
to tn. testimony of the good faith Of these
several acts between the parties, there would
seem to be no defense for Sheriff Clark. But
the fact will not be overlooked that all the
witnesses are the actors in those transac-
tions, and one OF them, the plaintiff in this
action, is testiiying in his own interest, and
but for the act passed at the last session oi
tie Legislature making parties competent
witnesses could not have been offered as II wit
ness in this case. The same is true also about
certain OF the witnesses on the other side,
who are plaintiffs In the suits on which the
executions were issued TO Sheriff Clark, and
with respect to his acts under which he was
Unidentified by them"
Aiterward further detailing the various
transaction, the Justice goes on to say
s.To all these circumstances showing un-
explained, obvious ownership on the part of
james A. Sanders, the plaintiff replies that
all his conduct and acts were In entire har-
mouy and accord with agency for his
daughter and son. And so, In fact, they
were upon the theory OF the honesty of the
transactions. Whether they were In fact
honest, is the very matter you are trying;
and the defendant, upon this contention OF
the plaintiff, shows you by the proof oi
James A. Sanders himself that he rendered
no accounts of his agency to his principals,
who seem not to have been desirous to have
any. 1t must be remembered, however.
that they were parent and children. me
on evident we have Of any empI' ynent oil
James A Sanders, with compensation, is
the statement by his son, in his testimony,
that the understanding between them. was
that the family of his father consisted oil SIX
persons aud was to be maintained and the
rent of his house paid out OF the profits OF
the store.
The law generally in relation to fraudu-
lent sales WAS then gone over In detail. his
Honor stating at the outset that ut is nee
essary to the validity of sales OF personal
property that the goods sold shall be de-
ivered by the seller into the hands OF the
buyer as soon as conveniently may be.
Sch sale is presumably an honest one
| and cannot be impeached except by proof oil
fraud between the parties. II that be
shown then it is a dishonest one. BY the
| law of this State sale without delivery Is
void as to creditors, but good as between
| the parties themselves, who would not be
| allowed In court of justice to avoid their
own fraudulent SALE A convenient means,
resorted TO before the law became fixed,
was A bill of sale to make transfer OF title;
and under this device gross frauds were
practised." ,.,.
The charge then went on at some length
uDon the legal points of the case In their
relation 70 the facts as brought out, the
eourt showing decided leaning in favor OF
Sheriff Clark as against the deiehoaht, upou
the presumption of fraud.
A number Of written points handed the
court by Mr.. Nields were read ana COM
mented upon, and at 4.30 o'clock the jury
retired to the grand jury room ior consui'a-
tiun.
THE JURY STILL OUT.
At 80 this morning the jury had not
90, rnnortea and all that Is definitely known