New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-12-20

HIS DECISION IN I'M ''iA w
WILLIAM r. CARTER vs.. CITY
OF OTTAWA.
The plaintiff brought this action as the ., holder by
and owner Of forty bonds for 500 each issued Dg
the defendant on August 2 1859 payaple ,,s 10
bearer esn yea .sad ae 5r da n
and that the plaintiff Is not an INNOCENT holuer ~,
,ha October tarm lss2 in the case OF ottawa VS.
Gary. los { 5 io held that number Of bonds ,, Of
ers. who acquired them invalid and at the october
term 1873 in Hackett vs. Ottawa. ~ ~ ; No. thai
in the hands Of an innocent purchaser for value
The bonds in this suit belonged TO MIS-, ,|ou use
she and her agent. L. H. t:1mss roth Stizs 1n 81
sale TO the plaintiff the facts upon which the mum,
cipality had Issued payment Inus advised ana
her Mrs Mather. through her agent. placed the
bonds the hands OF MI Wayne, Mac
william r Carter the plaintiff. was successful
business man Of large means engaged In mining and
MacVeagh has been his attorney and general legal
adviser since 1871 or 1873 Carter had inquired of
by Mrs Mather il he knew OF opportunities for
Investment Garter had RsvSIsy, made Ia, larTe In
was sim his legal adviser. Under these circum-
stances Mr.. MacXsagh telesraPned Car,er at his
they met and is claimed Carter bought the bonds
Mr. Ma WacvSash informed him that he had the
bonds for sale; that they had been Issued by the
nav nav them thai they were good beyond all question
that they would certainly be paid Mt maturity: that
they contained the proper municipal clauses, that
without seeing them or knowing anything about
them he made the purchase. relying upon Mr. Mac
Neagh's advice. and gave the latter his check Tor
$50 900 with the understanding on his (Carters) part
that the bonds were 10 be purchased by Mr. Mac
Veagh for him. and that they certainly were so
purchased; that he did not ask MacNeagh whether
their validity had been disputed, and that he had
no agreement with anyone that his money should be
returne! II he failed 10 collect the bonds Eames
testified that H. went TO Philadelphia and placed
tina, he did this upon the advice OF Mr.. Franklin
MacVeagh. OF Chicago. who Is related by marriage
10 Mrs Mather and who IL Wayne MacNesghs
brother: that he Mrs. Mathers agent in the
management OF her estate. ana that neither Wayne
MacVeagh nor any else had paid TO him or 10
his principal. with his knowledge. any money arts
Ing from the sale OF the bonds. Wayne MacNeagh
testified that Eames advised with him az 10 the
hest method OF securing the money due upon the
bonds and employed him To bring suit. or take
any other course that he might think best TO col
lpct the money: that In negotiating the sale To the
attorney: that he told the plaintiff he had the bonds
for sale. that he had made Inquiries and satisfied
himself the municipality was abundlntly able 10
rav is debts AMI that the lC nts would he paid at
maturity: that they shoN ii upon their face they
had been issued for municipal purpose. that he
sent for the Plaintiff because ne Was an Investor.
that there was no occasion for acting "a counsel
fnr the plaintin. that he st retained the money
no cot Tor the sale OF the bonds. and that no
,vas an. OF plaintiffs counsel in prosecuting this
suit Mrs Mnthcr acquired the bonds with kn0wl-
elve of the facts which maze them invalid. Her
agent and Mr. MacNeagh both knew that collection
could not BE- enforced In her favor and the plaintiff
is therefore equally unfortunate Il his purchase
,xos mad. upon Mr. MacNeaghs advice as his
counsel or agent as in that case the knowledge Of