Daily Republican., 1882-12-07

tors were involved, to allow the execu
tion debtor to act and deal with sucl
property levied on as his own, as BY
selling and disposing of 1t for his owl
use, would be strong circumstances Il
show collusion between the parties anC
the apparent Indebtedness q feigneC
aud covinOus one. And if the jur,
should believe from the evidence anC
circumstances showing such course o.
conduct on the debtor's part that the
execution was really intended as GOV,
er to shield the defendants property
from his creditors, though pushed to a
sale, and that the parties who after.
wards became the owners of the proper
~ accepted it with q knowledge of the
true state Of things, or with such evil
dence before their eyes as would natur
ally create suspicion, their title would
be affected, although such title might
have come to them through the credi-
tor who caused the sale to be made and
had been the purchaser, for the fraud
would only be the more odious that the
processes of the law had been abused to
promote it.
1t the jury believed from the facts
and circumstances proved in evidence
that the Judgment bonds given by
James A. Sanders were fraudulent
then the sale under the execution issued
upon them was invalid and passed no
title as against creditors to the property
held by James A. Sanders, and the
subsequent transfers to Bertha and
Henry l.. Sanders were invalid and
fraudulent; also if in the opinion of the
jury these persons k"ew of collusive
fraud between James A. Sanders and
M. +. Sanders, In such case they should
find verdict for the defendant. On
the contrary, if they were of the opin-
ion that the defendant had not shown
sufficient facts to warrant tho Jury in
believing that James A Sanders in
tended fraud and that after the sale of
his property he was not allowed by
Rertha to use and deal with il, then
their verdict should be for the plaintiff.
Fraud is never to be supposed it
must be proved, and can only be proved
by circumstances.
After reciting several decisions In
similar cases the Chief Justice proceed.
ed to consider tho points of law sub
mitted by Mr.. Nields, and closed at
4 05 when the jury retired.
A jury was then drawn and the case
Of Russell Coe vs. Thomas English,
William d. Wilds, Johu T. Poor and
Patrick Mellon taken up for trial. j.
Alexander Fulton and George Gray
Esqs. for the plaintiff. and Richard
Harrington and George II. Bates Esq5.
for the defendants.
This is a suit for damages for trespass
counsel for the defense alleging thAt
the defendants had taken away the
of Mr.. Coz and converted it
to their own uee.
This property, it vas stated, was on
the farm of the pl iltitt near Kenton in
Kent county, september 20, 1879, when
the defendants by some means hunted
up the cattle, drove them away and
sold them. The property consisted of
an Alderney bull valued at $40, Dur
ham heifer valued at $40, an Alderney
better worth S25 six shOats valued at
$40 and a barn shovel worth ST.. This
suit was to recover from the defendant
Sl91, the lowest cash value of the prop
erty mentioned.
But two witnesses were sworn last
evening aud before the second one had
her testimony Court TOOK a
recess, and the further con sideration of
the case was postponed until this morn
ing