New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-12-04
II COURTS.
JUDGE BEACH'S STOCK SPECULATIONS.

JUDGE BEACH'S STOCK SPECULATlONS.
A DECISION IN HIS FAVOR BY JUDGE DARRELL
Judge Barrett, in the Supreme CoNrt, YESTERDAY
handed down a decision in favor OF the ueicnua"'
in the suit OF Frank Work and Others against III
Miles Beach. now sitting in the supreme o""
recover about $4,000, alleged to he que !" uo
plaintiffs in consequence Of some STOCK sPcou'u
by Judge Beach. The opinion was sent oo"" ~ "a
Court IIouse bv Justice taIrctt from ms hoihc' aHu
the clerk who had charge Of 1t refused 70 auo" ~"
be seen. saying that Judge Beach had toiu M Nv
to allow the newspaper men u Sc r. 4,
insisted that the opinion was pubrc pr"p"' ~. d.
was placed on file. and insisted upon tieT 'Isnt ~
.na =. W. c,or,, wen, into the Judges private
room and when he returned he said that NJ "a'
nositlve orders not 10 allow the newspaper :" W
see the opinion. A reporter t'en VEN | nn.o
barrett a, his home. Jus'ioe Barrc' VIZ"
to the clerk. In which he tod the cieik lh" ~ of""o"
w.s nubl,c ~property after IL was fled ana inc oaeo
- no ,,rstcd the clerk had not made inc
nj Mo- NJ withholding il from the newspaper me"'
rrro, ,he delivery OF this note u Wc '"" ~"
oninion was handed over quickly enough
Al the trial Of the suit Judge Heach scNIo""Ns01
H. doh, and said that he had agreed to pay II ~ soon
q 8 he WAS able. 1t was mainly upon the agreement
- 4. the debt as soon as he was able that inc
su, w.s founded. In reaching the conclusion uha'
the action cannot be maintained against judge Do"V"
npon that agreement, Justice Barrett say "n'"n o"
things In his opinion We must apploaoh to '"
GiteratiOu OF this case tc ~nNP'
laid down BIZ the General Term in dl1Ieslhs Vi uV
dor,urror lin this easel where it was held upon ii
consideration that the promise to pay 'wheh aoo :"
do So, upon which this action IL fonndeo' y"
ditional. and that to entitlc the plaintiiis TO rV''N''
,h.reon they must plead and prove the fact OF such
ability. The plaintiffs, however, contend that "0
case made by the present ~pleadings ana prOoIs'ui"0'7
from ,hat presented by the demurrer to the oflsin"i
complaint, and that 1t now appears tha' te piu"
IA nav when able was not interviewer WIN 'c Jun"
sion and statement Of the account Iherc j. no'""e
in the amended complaint or in the teSthoh. " W"
rant this view Of the case. II proceeds hI"nhs ny"
the improved assumption that the deienuaht a. ~
defence To the action which was pending against MIN
when the negotiations for settlement, when ieS"'e"
in the liquidation OF the accounts ana u' ~"
p,y when able. were had. Upon this assumption inc
plaintiffs claim that the promise was mace SUPP! W
cause the debt was just and was theh u"' -.
further claim that the promise TO pay dh "'"o,'
ana admitted debt. when the DEBTOR o9n' "
nothing more nor less than Il promise to pay OIL oe-
mand. or. at the outside, within a reasonaDie ''no'
The fallacy of these positions lies not OH! IL 'O
improved assumption, but in the compIee lsnoii"s :"
the valuable consideration which, upon inc so'.V
,nent. the plaintiffs received from the defendant 1or
their acceptance of this very conditional pIo"hs@' !"
decd, but for the acceptance oi this conditional promise
The settlement would have been entirely uhiia'-fd'
The defendant gave up everything-hls defence 10 te
existing suit, his profits upon his indlVIdual account
and his right to question the items of the Joiht ''o''''
What was he to receive i'll return! Upon the pam.
tirs' theory absolutely nothing. They gol Ea oi
his defence, they took his profits upon the laHN u"'i
account, they sold all his securities thcI enec'1u d
balance in their own way, which, upon ieCelpt w a
final account, the defendant accepted DIlhdI! anu ',pM
tIev claim that the defendants promise TO pay VIC
balance. when able TO DO 80, alno1atV"n To- c mn
Ing. and was really an unconditional ackroW IGusnton'
of an honest debt and a promise to pay II on oenIaHh'
This view of the transaction Is wholly lhadHllssAnic.
IL is supported neither by the pleadmgs nor inc
proofs. -Lioh .ho
In the present case the only evidence which the
plaintiffs have given tending 10 SHOW ahht} Is inc
dcfondant's admission that since The promise "a' mUne
he has been in recelp. OF a judicial salary OF Sl,-LO
pcr month. The defendant testified That tais saary
was expended month by mcptH. 3 recHved' ana ,hAt
he had not "a penny Of 1t at thu time OF te comnlchoe,,
ment OF this suit. ms ihcIud'o MS pei,O.Si
expenses. for which a reasonable sum wa, utilzed.
And here | may say tina, IL WAS the defendants dutE 70
The people, whose servant he Is: t. MAINTAIN hihns ms
dcc.ifly and in a manner suitable to ms luGicia1
station. such expenditures necessarily consumed me
M! ~ ~ abiIi,x n nav mis- d.ht. This
arrlon i strictly legal. II the plaintiffs arc eluticd
4, recover at all. il is solely upon the promise 70
isv when he was able. Upon proof Of a5llltS theY
would DO entitled to recover the entire amount OF thelr
claim. Upon failure 10 make that proof. they ncccs
sarlv fail In toto. II follows that the Judgment mnst
be for the defendant. dismissing the complaint with