New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-10
A STRANGE CASE.

A STRANGE CASE.
Joseph. Lord Little is n remarkable man.
Such a combination Of sensityeness ana care
lessness TO criticism we have never seen De-
fore Some other men are as thn-skinned as
he Some others are as obtuse and indnereht
to what is said about them. But where else
are the same qualities simultaneously found i'll
the same man? 1t Is marvellous. NO Zooiogi-
cal smle fits the case. What beast combines
the tender integument OF soft-shell crap III
its softest softness with the pachydermatous
duness of the horned rhlnoceros! AS Loru
Little In those profound literary studies when
so qualify him TO rule our educational system
doubtless learned, Horace warns writer's against
the artistic abuse Of any such unnatural juno
ton of animal parts, and therefore we refrain
from any attempts at flguratve charac'erizh-
ton of his temperament, and will just tell
plain tale Of what we regard as psychoiogicai
problem worthy OF study.
Some time ago DR.. Butler, poor cohese
professor" Of no official position, spoke or Lord
Little as an educational mastodon, thereby ac-
cording to our Lord District-Attorney, tending
TO bring him into public ridicule as an oih
fogy We do not mean to underestimate 'he
circulation or Importance OF the puphca'ioh
containing DR.. Buffers article, but we doupt
II one intelligent person out or thousanu III
this city ever read this awful charge or IL
they did. remembered 1t five minutes after-
ward. Practically nobody knew Lord Little
had been called an antediluvian until ne MINI
self drew attention TO II by securing an 1ndlct-
ment and announcing that he would not per-
NIT himself to be called names which ne dld
not understand. Now almost everybody KNOWS
about It. So much for the sensitive Lord Litue.
Lot us see about the Indifferent Lord Little.
Some months ago the Appellate Division Oh
the Supreme Court having voice much more
powerful than that Of poor college proIes-
sor" handed down a decision In case IN whlch
Lord Little was a defendant. In that decisloh
the Court with great emphasis declared tnat
the said Lord Little had acted frauduiehtiy'
and denounced him in terms harsh enough 10
make the most thick skinned person vince
Yet. after that decision was quoted III Inc
Tribune. this same Lord Little wrote on FRI
dav. saving: Last evening ] had not seen or
tread that decision. have seen extracts from
at for the first time this morning in The IT'D
"une" What q remarkable man. He never
even knows for months that the Supreme Court
has accused him of fraud, but Is in arms at
once when a poor college professor" calls him
an old fogy. If we hadn't called his attention
20 a. no might never have set himself right be-
fore the world but might have lived Oh Tor
wears in ignorance Of the Courts DECISION
though apparently he knew enough on the SUD-
iect 10 have It appealed, and he says he hopes
for reversal
or the merits of the Courts action we do not
pretend to speak. Lord Little says Justice Cui-
len. Justice Gaynor and Justice Hatch himself
all commended his course as receiver anu
quotes from their opinion. But there Is one
poInt we do not understand. and as he does
not follow Court attacks on him closely, per-
hans II is well we should call his attention 10
II so that lie may clear 1t up. We nouce that
tho oninions he quotes say that in good faith
he had title to the insurance moneys as against
the company who issued them. That seems
TO be clear and satisfactory. So far as we can
Sec the Court approved his action ms between
himself. Mrs Worthngton and the creditors
of the Worthington Company. But the later
decision Of Justice Hatch seems to imply tnat
when granting such approval the Court was
deceived. and that n fraud had been committed
In diyerting the insurance policies from the
creditors of Richard Worthington who had
nrlor claim to that OF the company creditors, as
the company's receiver knew Justice Hatch
saws. This compromise. sanctioned by the
Judgment creditors through the misrepresenta-
"tions of the said Little was, by like meth
"ods. given the approval Of the Court and
speaking of the correctness of the transaction
as between the receiver and the Insurance COM
pany he says: "Under the circumstances IL
"ought not to avail the fraudulent beneficiary
that he was guilty of no fraud in exchanging
"the claim under the policies for actual cash.
"for it was by virtue Of his former fraudulent
"acts. and by these alone. that he was
"paccd in the position TO make the exchange
land receive the money
So far as we can make out, the acts which
Lord Little quotes the Court as commencing
and the acts the Court called fraudulent were
not the same acts. If he Is not too busy prov
ing that he is not mastodoD perhaps he will
show that they were.