We venture to suggest
that it might be Well for the Legislature to alter the rule laid down in
McCord _vs._ People."
Well might the judges regret being compelled to set a rogue at liberty
simply because he had been ingenious enough to invent a fraud (very
likely with the assistance of a shyster lawyer) which involved the
additional turpitude of seducing another into a criminal conspiracy.
Livingston was turned loose upon the community in spite of the fact that
he had swindled a man out of $500 because he had incidentally led the
latter to believe that in return he was to receive counterfeit money or
"green goods," which might be put into circulation. Yet, because some
years before, the Judges of the Court of Appeals had, in the McCord
matter, adopted the rule followed in civil cases, to wit that as the
complaining witness was himself in fault and did not come into court
with clean hands he could have no standing before them, the Appellate
Division in the next case felt obliged to follow them and to rule
tantamount to saying that two wrongs could make a right and two knaves
one honest man.
Pages:
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126