The herald., 1898-04-12
SUSSkIND WORSTED
HIS APPLICATION FOR A NEW
TRIAL DENIED
WOULD NOT EXPLAIN THINGS
Pertaining to the Wagner Business,
and His Course Was Viewed
With Suspicion by Court

The old case of A. I. Hail. assignee II
insolvency Of Mrs. L. NJ. Wagner, agains
H. Susskind, which has under differen
phases been making the rounds of the su
perior and supreme courts for severa
years, is with us once more. The defend
ants appeal from the judgment Of Superior
Judge Mckinley, which was in favor Of
Hall for the sum of $4,000. was dismissed
He then appealed from the order OF the
superior court denying him new trial, the
main question being whether the evidence
sustained the finding of fraudulent con-
version by Susskind. The supreme court
now affirms that order.
The history of the case, briefly stated
Is as follows: In March, 1892, the Wagner
stock In trade was worth between $50, OOt
and SIC, 900. In July of the same year it was
valued at only $4,000. 1t was seized IN
Sept ember, and few days later she filed
her petition in iusolvency. The goods then
In stock were probably $1,000 or less. On
November 16. Hail, as assignee of Mrs.
Wagner, sold it to Susskind for sTO0.
Susskind embarked in the jewelry busi-
ness at the same stand on Spring street
where Mrs Wagner had had her store, and
was assisted there by j. B. Wagner, now
deceased, the insolveuts husband Be-
tween the time of entering in the jewelry
trade and July 26, 1898, Susskind sold. at
auction and at private sale, goods to the
amount of $4,000. and then the balance Of
the stock was attached by Wunsch and
other creditors of insolvent Mrs. Wagner,
who claimed that It was her property. And
at that time there was in the store mer-
chandfse consisting of diamonds, jewelry.
watches, clocks, etc, of the value of be-
tween $4,000 and $50, 900. The only addition
shown to have been made by Susskird
stock by purchase between November, 1892,
and July, 1898, consisted of diamonds.
watches, etc, to the amount of $500.
Evidence was introduced at the trial
that ]. B. Wagner had confessed to the
secretion of many goods and that when
asked If he had put away $4,000 worth he
had replied: '"Yes, plenty" There were
also certain declarations of Sussknd's
tending TO show that an understanding ex-
listed between him and the Wagners by
which it was arranged that the stock
should belong to them after they had re-
paid the defendant the money he had in
vested, with interest thereon. He was re-
paid. but continued In possession. After
INC w uusCu dltdCHHeNl WAS l6NleQ SusS-
kind refused 70 open strong box inside
of the safe, alleging that it contained moth
ing but private papers, but when 1t was
opened a few days later it was found 10
contain jewelry worth $500 not part of the
stock sod by Hall to Susskind and not
shown to have been purchased by the lat
ter elsewhere When the plaintiff had con-
Guided the evidence on his side. Susskind
moved for non-su.t, which being denied
he declined to introduce any testimony.
The supreme court says that it was easv
for the defendant 10 prove whether the
goods In his stock, which had been enor-
mously augmented from some undisclos ed
source. were introduced into his store with
out his knowledge or had been legitima tely
obtained. He declined to offer proof, and
the superior cour, viewed this neglect with
suspicion. 1t is fair 10 infer that the sales
made by the defendant included goods
which had been surreptitiorsly withheld
from the assignee. says the court.
AS to defendants claim that there was
no proof to sustain the courts finding of
the value Of the goods conver; ed-s15, 900
the supreme court thinks that there was
Susskind's sales had amounted to sS4 900;
assum.ng-what is improbable-that all
the goods shown TO have been purchased
by him were again sold, and a liberal
margin of profit, the proceeds thereof
would still be short Of the total amount of
sales by the sum of $4,000 or more.