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. It may seem a trifle unfair to put it in just this way,
but when one realizes the iniquity of such a doctrine as applied to
criminal cases, it is hard to speak softly. Thus the broad and general
doctrine seemed to be established that so long as a thief could induce
his victim to believe that it was to his advantage to enter into a
dishonest transaction, he might defraud him to any extent in his power.
Immediately there sprang into being hordes of swindlers, who, aided by
adroit shyster lawyers, invented all sorts of schemes which involved
some sort of dishonesty upon the part of the person to be defrauded. The
"wire-tappers," of whom "Larry" Summerfield was the Napoleon, the
"gold-brick" and "green-goods" men, and the "sick engineers" flocked to
New York, which, under the unwitting protection of the Court of Appeals,
became a veritable Mecca for persons of their ilk.

To readers unfamiliar with the cast of mind of professional criminals it
will be almost impossible to appreciate with what bold insouciance these