The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-02-06
URGING APPOINT OF LM
TIP CASE OF WARREN, LOVE e. co.
VS.. II. FURsTENHEIM ON TRIAL. /,
The Second Attempt to Reach Decision,
But Mr.. Furstenheim's Death Causes
Fine Point OF Law To Be Sprung,
Upon Which Hinges the Suit.

The case OF Warren, Love & Co., Of st.
Louis, VS.. II. Furstenheim, through his
administrative, is on trial in the United
States District Court, Judge f. s. Ham
mond presiding.
|. 1t is a suit for SIS, 900, claimed as dam
ages because OF alleged fraudulent misrep-
reservations by the late Mr.. Fursteneim,
which caused the plaintiffs to sustain
heavy pecuniary loss
This is the second trial OF the case. On
its first trial there was absorbing interest
taken in it because OF the high stand
ing Of the parties and tho sensa-
tional charges upon which the action is
founded. According to Mr.. Warren's
testimony on the first hearing, his firm
had been dealing rather literally with a
mercantile and cotton-handling firm in
Arkansas, the name OF which is not re-
called at this writing. Mr. Furstenheim,
as the head OF business firm in this city,
had also dealt largely with the Arkansas
| firm. He was informed that the St. Louis
| house had ceased its accommodations for
the Arkansas house, and, while in st.
Louis, met Mr.. Warren on the floor OF the
cotton or mercantile exchange. Mr..
Warren testified on the stand, in the first
trial, that Mr.. Furstenheim had inquired
OF him why the Arkansas firm had been
cut of from further supplies. lie was
informed that IT was because OF re-
ports that il was shaky, and a dangerous
investment. Mr.. Furstenheim ridiculed
the idea, represented the house in ques-
ton Ms perfectly reliable, aud upon his
statements Warren, Love * Co. advanced
a large supply Of goods and cash. Soon
afterward the recipients OF their accommo-
dation went TO the wall, making an assign
ment with Mr.. Furstcnheim's firm as pre-
ierred creditor. According 10 the witness,
Mr.. Furstenheim took charge OF the stock,
| fixtures, etc, Of the defunct concern, closed
it out, and Warren, Love q Co. got left
Hence the suit. When the first hearing
was had Mr.. Furstenheim was alive and
from the stand denied the state
ment as presented by Mr.. War
ren. particularly the conversation related
to have occurred between Mr.. Warren
and himself at ST. Louis. A mistrial re-
suited, and soon aftcrward Mr. Fursten-
helm died. Now the case is up again.
Yesterday was devoted 10 arguing dis
puted and fine point OF law presented,
before the judge alone. IL was as to
whether, Mr.. Furstenheim being dead
and unable TO appear in his own behalf,
the testimony Of Mr. Warren would be
competent. Mr.. 4. b. Turley, as counsel
for Warren, Love * Co., insisted that il
would, and his client should be allowed 10
testify, since II would be an easy matter
for the opposing counsel. Judge Walker
and Col. Metcali, could easily prove what
Mr.. Furstenheim had testified on the former
trial. This point the counsel resisting IL
opposed, and for two hours there was
very learned, but informal, discussion.
Judge Hammond finally suggested that
the attorneys take n day of aud hunt up
authorities TO speak on the point. Should
| Mr.. Turkeys point be sustained, then the
case will be proceeded with before jury;
otherwise IL will be an end Of the suit,
since the only witness is the plaintiff him
self and he cannot testify.