Daily Republican., 1882-12-07
THE JURY OUT.
u.MgE OF T HI II CHIEF
~ sTTCE IN THE SAN.
DERs CASE.

--.-s-.---
oorveped at 3 O'Clock yester
COuIsst sts.Doon moo and Immediately afte
y u ~sa of the jurors wore called
Y q. I'IT Tustice Comegys delivered tn
ala ~ the Sanders case. He spok
arls tSe ~ great amount of time, seve
~ o ~ 'ut nave been consumed in tn
iJs l,s snSS aid that as the transaction
~ paOnded paS over a period OF years,
. eas ascsssary that Sufficient tim
y s.,S 1IS h taken to inquire into all tn
sSa sllS, ease is one wherein the transac
Ine CsOo - alleged by the defendant to b
ons ,aisnt Ie and 1t is the experience o
auuu,%St ,Sot cases of alleged fraud re
als ,raster 'ss time for their disposa
pr lI' SOst others, because fraud Rener
" InusIsts IuU of variety of circum'
y.S" vSD many Of them secret or occult
M ~, Ssn only be revealed after loni
l,va , .aiions ion sxamina of witnesses
VA rarely enters upon q career o
u With respect to creditors
,S,ut nv endeaVoring to forecas
l,IS ~ Mo, ide against circumstances
ls',,jops likely TO expose his arti.
4 generally extremely difficult
s.sh tbe necessary proof to sus'
|. .woceeding to defeat 1t, and wheI
I'M il is proved in the vast major
v rsuea to consist of a multitude
,sriety of isolated facts, requiring
.u,rily the production of many
I,rs.,eS In the present case the
saS subject of controversy was
SsiSsr Nm the goods at the time of sale
Slsriff Clark were or were not the
IOOsrty Of James A. Sanders. The
Nm NM Of the plaintiff was what is
SoWn @ "A an action Of trespass vi ct ar,
h and was divided into five counts
Waving the entry into plaintiffs
ouse expelling him from the same
4 REMOVING him therefrom, thereby
gO,ivinp him of the beneficial use OF
property; the seizure and carrying &
vsy Of his goods by the sheriff and
sCopversion of them by the latter to
own uses, and a short count consist
n simply OF trespass ''and other
s0pps," The defense pleaded not gull.
and justification on the ground that
h poO6s belonged to james A. San.
The fourth count had been de-
Dred to and the demurrer sustained .
Al the cIose is the usual allegation OF
hnspeS which is laid generally at
DOOO His Honor then gave an eX-
uSive review of the evidence addu.
u in the case, and said there was no
II Of testimony so far as those of the
snuf's witnesses who claimed 20 be
mizant of the facts were concerned
st the transactions which occurred
tween James A. Sanders, NJ. L. San.
ss, &. Bertha Sanders and the plain
ffH, LSanders were hones bona tide
ID in all respects. Certainly they
BGe unsuspicious, though somewhat
ngular, considered in the light of
er testimony alone, If the jury gave
lsdit to the testimony of the good
Nth Of these several acts between the
ArieSthsrewOuld seem to be no defense
RSheritf Clark. But the fact was NOT
hOverlOoked that all these witnesses
Ea the actors in these transactions
ID one Of them the plaintiff in this
StlOn, testifying in his own interest.
hesame was true also of certain of
De witnesses on the other side who
ere plaintiffs in the suit on which the
xeCuhOns were issued.
But the defendant alleges that al.
aOugh much fOrmality of transaction
~ observed in all the dealings
lth respect to the goods sold
Mrs Mary E. Sanders by Sheriff
Eye, yet that in point of fact the
F1ole Of them were fraudulent and
oid as being in violation of the law of
rs State, and in derogation of the rights
his creditors, the plaintiffs. Much tes.
'.mOny has been offered in support of
ills construction by way of proof of
circumstances inconsistent with the
iAntlil s claim Of good faith. And
leie think 1t proper TO say to you that
nv rarely can fraud be established
EGe other facts, the proof OF its ex-
IenCe consisting in all cases of cir
pnstanceS which separately would
y prove much, but taken together
Rim chain Of proof sufficiently COM
'Iste 10 compel Jury to treat transac.
Ons apparently fair as covinous and
auaalent Another difficulty is
Wv takes two persons to cOncoct a
Auu, ana therefore there are two co.
etasihg Or Gonspiring minds to con
w tne evil and conceal artiticss by
WA they acted, or 50 color them with
Lasppearance of honesty as sometimes
gGeclVe ~ the most wary.
lue IaCt has not been shown that
Ivy n Sanders was able to make ad.
Ilces to James A. Sanders such as
W Deen shown in this case, that the
nmony Of the plaintiff shows that
NaS mere needle woman ct the
tSUt %s4 nef marriage earning her living
siSM this they ask you to draw the
klsSiuSions that whatever was advanc-
" neF to him was in fact his own
ECIeh realized Ia the course IF lis
s'tIeSS' ,I While proof of circumstances
INV, %o part OF Mary. e. Sanders suffi-
EnScy |y am9snt to enable Mary Il.
lsS uetS 70 lend money to her brother
N In ". nsu not been made out, it had
Inua Va the other hand been shown that
III %Vo a, Sanders could have aecumu-
~ ~ the time when these sums,
IoUut oVutuang to $4,000, were advanced,
vSloi TvasI from bis business to place tie
" teisa ~ amounts within his control.
n tb.,e uelehse relied on the fact that not
ssIaS.'andlng a.a the sale by Sheriff Pyle
s,S.ht psIle was opened next day and
a's.alng yum went on as usual, and i'll
ust tthL'nesSes !" were to be- believed this
AZ, Ieys1 1aye .S been so. The plaintiffs an.
,nSosa NAV Spls oy urging that James A.
d S baS was acting as his sons agent
o,nSu u brought forward letter Of
u h,sy IN proof of the fact. There
nj s ~ one one evidence of any employ.
Dsstia l James A. Sanders with COM
1pIS,oe, n h;s VIZ, the statement OF his son
I I n,s nn,i iather was maintained and his
IA. p"'u out of the profits from the
' v in 'asn sas proceeded to instruct the
w. "a lelerance to the Law in the case. |
4 y necessary TO the validity of sale
Cb ,aere ! a should be delivery Of goods. |
|, a"s sale waa presumably an hou est |
proot uI ceuld not be impugned except |
sale wi.l fraud between the parties. |
ditoru" "snouS huS delivery is void as to
ause -" "uI good between III parties
take oIw 'ne law does not permit a man
T@e dIV4nfaefA ~ 4