view raw text
1 1 1 1 i i • 1 1 ■ • 1 • I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 - PLAYFELLOW CASE DECISION Jury Returns Verdict in Favor of Harry M. Sinclair — Appeal Taken. NEW YORK. X. . March 2.— The jury ia the 00,000 suit of Harry M. Sinclair against .lames F. Johnson in connection with the sale «f Playfellow returned a verdict for the plaintiff in Part I. of the Supreme Court. Brooklyn, this afternoon aftev about two hours deliberation. The case went to the jury at 12:40 and the verdict was returned ..at 4 oclock. Justice James C. Cropsey in his charge to the jury declared that there were two juestions before the jury: 1 Whether any warrant had been given at the time of the sale: and t2 Whether, if such was the case, it should be given with the intent to defraud. He emphasized the importance of the truth or falsity of Johnsons testimony to the effect that he had made no such representations and also that he had no knowledge of the use of the cribbing bit on Playfellow at the time of the sale. On the request of Attorney Philip A. Brennan, for the plaintiff, that he add to his instructions a statement that the knowledge of the use of the cribbing bit, added by trainer James Pitzftimmou" on the stand, waaM assure similar knowledge on the part of Johnson himself. Justice Cropsey decided in the negative. •• • The closing arguments of the opposing coonnel consumed about two hours. Attorney H. S. Coch- rane. for the defense, declared in his summing up that no fraud had been proved, that no satisfactory proof had been offered that Playfellow possessed the bud habits charged by the plaintiff and that no case should be made by Sinclair against bis client. Attorney Brennan. for the plaintiff, dissected the testimony offered hy defenses witnesses piece by piece, brought out the various i*ontrudlcrory and inconsistent statements and generally denounced the evidence as independable. He asked the Jury if they could believe for one minute that any man who owned forty-one race horses, including one snp- posed to be worth 00,000, could remain Ignorant of the condition and habits of his horses." The first trial of the suit in December resulted in a jury disagreement. Attorneys for Johnson an- nounced following the verdict that an appeal woiU.I I be taken at once from the adver-e decision in rhfc case.
