Year: 1875

The Grand Jury OF the Court Of General Sessions
were yesterday discharged from further service,
with the thanks OF the Court.


A Judgment for s12.500 In foreclosure suit for
four lots, at the northwest corner OF 122d street
and Seventh avenue, was yesterday enJered
against Thomas J. Crcamer in the Supreme Court


In the suit brought by the United states against
General Monk, convicted for keeping in his pos
session counterfeit money, under sections 81 and
81 OF the United States Revised Statutes, a motion
was made oy his counsel Judge Dittenhoefer, for
new trial and In arrest OF judgment on the ground
that the government itself proved that the de-
fendant gave the counterfeit money TO one
Porter who represented himself to be friend OF
one Cengdon then under arrest, counterfetter,
for the purpose OF having 1t destroyed 80 that IL
could not be used as evidence against Congdon
and that on these facts. there being no intent to
delraud by circulating the money, the conviction
could not stand. Judge Benedict holding United
States Circuit Court, ordered yesterday reargu-
ment OF the motion before three judges, saying
that the questions presented were very'important
and novel and that they ought to receive the
consideration OF full Bench


LAW OF COMMERCIAL FRAUDS.


A case of considerable Importance to hair manu-
facturers and importers was tried recently in the
narine Court Part q, before Judge Joachimsen,
in which BeckeI and Hurchvant-one O hair
dealer IA Tnis city and the other an importer of
the same were plaintiff and defendant, The
plaintiff claimed recovery In the suit for
damages accrulng to him In the sale OF
inferior hair, Represented by the defendant, as
alleged, to be OF better quality than the goods
actually were or as represented. The action is
for fraud ana the statement OF the cause OF action
In the complaint is 'that all the material state
ments made to plaintiff by the defendant TO in
duce him TO purchase artificial hair were untrue
and false, and known by the defendant to be un-
true and false when he so made them TO the
plaintiff, and were made By the defendant with
the wlliul and corrupt intent Of deirauding and
decetving the plaintin, ana that ne was defrsuded
she intent were controverted at the trial. The
motion to amend the complaint 50 as to withdraw
from the case the element OF alleged knowledge
was made.


The jury were instructed that their verdict de-
pended upon whether they believed that the de-
fendant wiliully cheated the plain tin, and If so
they would set the seal or their disapprobarton
they found that the defendant was honest in what
he did, and that he did no more than any other
prices than appear IN the invoices without al ali
trying TO palm OF an inferior article Tor superior
one, Ae Is entitled to verdict. The jury found
for the defendant.


The plainnf now complains that the jury should
have been instructed IN terms that the plaintiff
representations TO be false, or asserted that he
knew them to be true when he had no know wiedge



further reflection has since confirmed in my
opinion. that the lacts in this case permitted such
false representations to be that the defendant
represented the hair TO be OF assorted brown
Colors and shat the defendant had the same
packed at MaTsellles, France, ana knew what Is
was. The evidence for the planti6 showed that
the Custom House appraiser showed samples, one
OF which was black. and that with this knowledge
evidence before the Court the plaintiff was not
entitled 20 claim that ne vas deirauded by the
defendants repreSen tations. The case was put
to the jury Ia the most favorable aspect as re.
garded the plaintiff. II the defendant did not try
to palm on an Inferior article for q superior one
tne1 the defendant was entitled to verdict, but
II he wlfully cheated the P,aintin tne latter was
siwaVs endeayor to disregard pure technicslitY
for the purpose OF allowing the case before him to
se SEed on M is ~ ne sopd D ae n a
lead the jury IN regard TO the true Issue before
them, and tnis error would have been committed
had the Instruction been given In the terms re-
quired by the plaintiff. Toe facts In Bennett vs..
Judson (2l N. Y, 23el case IN regard 20 real
estate, not subject TO the rule caYeat emptor are
quite different from the facts OF this case. The
rule Of ethics and morality LAID down in tnat case
iury believed thar the defendant had represented
that he had seen the cases packed In Msrsellles
they could not have escaped the conclusion that
the defendant had falsely and knowingly mlsrep-
resented that fact. Had not the jury believed
that the paintlrr's agent had seen the sample and
knew that the cases contained black hair, and
that he did not purchase exclusively on rne de-
1endants statement, t1ey w4uld, undeT tne
Tne ruling at the trial Is In full conformity
with the rule expressed In Sunar vs. Canedy C53
N. ", that an1rmAtions OF fact AVOID a con-
tract when known to the utterer 10 be untrue II
made with the intention OF misleading the vendee
II he does rely upon them and Is msled 70 his in
jury. (See Stebbins VS.. Eddy, Mason, 4l4, 423.)
No one can doubt that the pleadiDgs in this case
are drawn 10 conform to this rule. The plaintiff
also claims that in this motion the plaint Is
amendable so as to disregard the allegation OF
scIeuter and to briRg the pleading TO state the
grievance II the defendant had made repre-
SentatiOns which, II not known TO him to be false.
were not known 30 him to be true. / do not think
sucn an amendment, actual or theoretical, can be
permitted. 1t would change the ISSUE In this
respect am controlled by Dudley vs.. Scra0 ton
(5T n. Y. 42D. This Is, | suppose, the latest re-
ported case on this subject, and 1t is there held
tnat where party sets up case based on fraud
he cannot be allowed to show that the injury to
him happened by mistake, which Is the precise
point aimed at by the plaintiff. | aTn, therefore
constrained 10 deny the motion, but do so without
granting COSTS