Stroub agt Henly. rogate should be reversed and a decree should be entered establishing the instrument proposed as the will of the decedent and directing it to be admitted to probate, with costs to the several parties to be paid out of the estate. DAVIS, P. J., and BRADY, J., concurred. CITY COURT OF NEW YORK. STROUB agt. HENLY. Arrest — Affidavits — Insufficiency of, to show a valid ground of arrest --Code of Civil Procedure, section 550. The fact that defendant said that he would not pay the plaintiff, and that he could not get the money, furnishes no ground of arrest, even when coupled with the admitted assertion that he was going to Europe. Where the only evidence submitted is, that defendant said that he would not pay the plaintiff, that he was going to Europe, and the opinion of plaintiff that he was about to take away all his money and property; & valid ground of arrest is not established. HAWES, J.-The affidavit of George W. Moore, jr., alleges that he had a conversation with defendant and that he informed him that he was going to Europe. The affidavit of John L. Stroub alleges the causes of action, which appear to be for damages for breach of contract and the balance of a loan, and that defendant told him that he was making prepara tions to go to Europe. No further information was derived from defendant, so far as appears, as to what he had done or was doing. The going to Europe, taken by itself, furnished no ground of arrest. The witness Stroub, however, alleges "that he has and is about to take with him all his money and property and all the money and property of his wife." Is this an allegation of any fact or circumstance which furnishes the court with information that the defendant intends to do so? It would seem to be a conclusion reached by the plain tiff, but what information has the court of his purpose? He Stroub agt. Henly. furnishes no evidence whatever. There is no statement of the defendant to that effect. He does not refer to any act of the defendant which would justify the conclusion reached. The mere fact that he is going to Europe in company with his wife would give rise to no such inference, and every presumption must be held to be in favor of an honest and not of a dishonest purpose. Besides, there can be no presumption of a fact in regard to which no evidence is offered, and the mere statement of a witness as to a defendant's purpose is valueless as establishing facts which would justify an inference of fraud. There is no evidence that he had any money or property, or that it was of any value. Can I hold on such a statement that a fraudulent intent to cheat has been established, especially in view of the fact that the plaintiff's state ments, although admitted to be true, are to be most strictly construed against him? This is the only vital allegation in the moving papers, and if I was convinced that the fact that he was about to take all his property to Europe was established by legal proof, I should feel justified in holding this order, but I cannot deem the plaintiff's bare and unsupported assertion of his opinion upon that question sufficient for that purpose. The fact that defendant said that he would not pay the plaintiff, and that he could not get the money furnishes no ground of arrest, even when coupled with the admitted assertion that he was going to Europe (Hathorn agt. Hall, 4 Abb. R., 228). The intention of the pleader was doubtless to establish a cause of arrest under subdivision 2 of section 550, which is that he has removed, or is about to remove, his property, with intent to defraud his creditors, and the only evidence submitted is that defendant said that he would not pay plaintiff; that he was going to Europe, and the opinion of plaintiff that he was about to take away all his money and property. This is admittedly all that appears upon the record, and under such facts I cannot hold that a valid ground of arrest has been established. Motion to vacate arrest granted, with costs. VOL. I 51 The People agt. Platt. Practice SUPREME COURT. THE PEOPLE agt. AUGUST PLATT. Criminal trial-Penal Code, sections 282, 283- Conviction of abduction under section 282- Evidence - When new trial will not be granted-Evidence corroborating the testimony of an accomplice required by section 283-Sufficiency of. The defendant was convicted of having taken a female under the age of sixteen years for the purposes of prostitution. The indictment charged the taking for purposes of prostitution. The evidence to support the indictment was that of the mother of the child as to her age; the evidence of the girl herself, also of a female physician as to the physical condition of the girl, and the evidence of two officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children as to the character of the place kept by the defendant and as to an interview with the defendant. On a motion for a stay pending appeal, after reviewing the evidence: Held, that although it may be true an appellate court may order a new trial if it be satisfied that the verdict against the prisoner was against the weight of evidence, or against the law, or that justice requires a new trial, whether any exceptions shall have been taken or not in the court below, in this case the verdict does not seem to be against the weight of evidence, or against the law, or that justice requires a new trial. The evidence of what the officers saw on the twenty-ninth of August was competent, because the girl was there then, and the character of the place in which the girl was then being kept was material to show the object of the keeping. The character of the house being material, it having been shown what it was while the girl was there, it was competent to prove what it had been both before and after within reasonable limits, and that it was kept by the same proprietor and used for the same purposes so as to show the character of the place. Both the mother and girl testified as to her age, and the statute allows the jury to consider her appearance in connection with the other evidence in determining the question of age. It is not necessary to constitute the taking of the girl by the defendant that it was accompanied by force and violence. If the girl went to the defendant's place voluntarily, and he invited her in, and allowed her to remain there, and used her for purposes of prostitution, it would be a taking within the meaning of the statute. What is required by section 283 of the Penal Code, as to corroborative testimony, is that there should be some fact deposed independently alto The People agt. Platt. gether of the evidence of the accomplice, which, taken by itself, leads to the inference not only that a crime had been committed, but that the prisoner is implicated in it. The false denials of the defendant are strong corroborations of a criminal intent upon the part of the defendant in the keeping of the girl. The evidence of the officers show that the girl was at the defendant's place with his knowledge, and that it was a house of prostitution, and from these facts the jury might well infer entirely, independent of the girl's testimony, that the defendant was keeping her there for the purposes of prostitution. The evidence of the mother and the officers then showed, independent of that of the girl herself, she was under sixteen years of age, and was being kept by the defendant for purposes of prostitution. This was evidence of material facts leading to the inference not only that a crime had been committed, but that the defendant was implicated in it. New York, Chambers, March, 1885. THE defendant having been convicted of having taken a female under the age of sixteen years for the purpose of prostitution, makes this motion for a stay pending an appeal. Wm. F. Howe, for motion. De Lancey Nicoll, opposed. VAN BRUNT, J. The section of the Penal Code under which the defendant has been committed reads as follows: "A person who takes a female under the age of sixteen years for the purpose of prostitution or sexual intercourse, or without the consent of her mother, father, guardian or other person having legal charge of her person, for the purpose of marriage, &c., is guilty of a felony." The indictment charged the taking for purposes of prostitution. The evidence to support, the indictment was that of the mother of the child as to her age, the evidence of the girl herself, also of a female physician as to the physical condition of the girl, and the evidence of two officers of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children as to the character of the place kept by the defendant and as to an The People agt. Platt. interview with the defendant. The evidence of the girl was to the effect that in the latter part of July, 1884, while strolling around New York with a companion, she came to 141 Chatham street; that she then saw the defendant for the first time, and she asked him how much it was to see the entertainment, and he said: "Nothing, my little dear; come in." That the defendant then treated them and asked if they were going to stay there; her companion said "no," and she said "yes;" that the defendant took them both up stairs and had sexual intercourse with them, and the girls then went down stairs and waltzed around until one or two o'clock and went up stairs to bed, getting up about ten o'clock. or eleven That there were seven or eight other girls there; that after three or four days she asked the defendant to buy her a new dress, and he bought it, and then she began to go up stairs with other men who paid her a dollar, which she gave to the bartender or to the defendant; that she stayed in the place until the end of August; that about half past six o'clock one evening she went to 107 Chatham street when the detectives were after her, and from there to the defendant's brother's place in Cherry street; that while the detec tives were at defendant's place, she went into a little closet, and when she came out the defendant said that she would have to go for a while until it would all be over. Officer Stocking testified that he knew the defendant, and that he first saw the girl in question August 29, 1884, at 141 Chatham street, between nine and ten o'clock; that officer Wilson was with him; that he saw there quite a number of men and women, among whom was the girl in question, some dancing, some drinking going on, &c. ; that the defendant was there; that when they went in they asked for the proprietor, and the defendant was pointed out; that they asked him and he said he was; that noticing a girl rather young for the place; he asked him if her name was not Kate Cavanagh, the girl in question, and if she did not come from |