The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1826-11-23

!; DJanlted, =; no appearance by Dcfen-
! dants.
.3rgued 10 the Court, 3-viz: .9rtemas
| .SieJJins, Of Swanzey, Mass VS.. Michael
Eddy, OF Newport. both Baptist Clergy
men, the former alleging in his bill, that
the latter sold him lot Of land for 80
acres, by the acre amounting To $500,
which fell short on measurement after the
bargain one fifth Respondent contend
.rg, that the land was sold in gross for 80
acres more or less. This cause was ar
gued by Randolph, for Plff. and Hunter
and Robbins, for DIT. and continued for
the court to make up an opinion.
Edioard Derter, Jr. vs.. lillian DeIter,
and others, involving tic question, wheth-
er second cousins should come in with the
first, under the Rhode Island Statute, of
| descents, as next of kin in certain cases
and decided in favor of the second cou-
sins; Plaintiff RECEIVERS one eighteenth
part Of the land described, instead ofone
tenth to which he would have been EMIT
led had second cousins been excluded.
EbeHezer Tyler and others vs.. .4brahoml
| Viik;nsoi, and others, i'll Chancery. Thus
was the most important case argued this
term. Question rs to the right of water
OH the part Of the owners Of Mills on Sar-
geant's Trench, in Pdwtucket the own
ers of the lower dam, the Plaintiffs in this
case, claiming the right to the natural
flow of the whole of Blackstone river,
whenever they may want it for their
works, to the exclusion Of the water for
Sargeant's Trench, and Defts. contendng
they arc entitled to the water as it now
flows, without interruption, through the
gate way at the head Of the Trench. The
case occupied an entire day, and was ar
gued by Messrs. Whipple, and Webster,
(of Boston, for Plaintiffs, and Messrs, Coz
zens and Searle for Defendants. II was
F continued Nsi Judge Story who sat alone
in the case Judge Pitman declining to
sit, from having formerly acted as counsel
for some of the parties,) intimatlng that
his opinion should be furnished in the
early part Of next month, if he could pos
siby find time 10 examine the great mass
Of papers and testimony in the case before
he was obliged 10 go to Washington.
Referred 10 .4rbitrators, 2. B. & &. Dy-
or 81 CO. vs.. Beckwith e. Pearson, and
Beckwith q Pearson VS.. B. d. G. Dyer &
Co. Judge Pilman aud Messrs. Jacob
Dunnell aud Lemucl H. Arnold, Arbitro.
tors.
HTdicis, 6, in the following cases 10
by Peek, W.. Josiah Whiiakcr, claiming
dover in an estate held by purchase of
grantees Of deceased husband Of Plaintiff,
on the ground that in the deed the plain
tiff did not relinquish her right Of dover
IL appearing, on the evidence, that Plain
tiff had signed the REIMBURSEMENT Of dow
er, the Judge ordered verdict To be TAX
en- for defendant; that the Jury find the
deed Of REIMBURSEMENT Of dover Is the
deed of the Plaintiff
j. UWOlE Jr. VS.. jacob BdbbW and an
other. Action Of trover, brought by Plain
tiff to recover 1913 boxes Of sugar, or l6l
thereof taken by Defendants, rs was al.
legged from out of the Plaintiffs legal pos.
session. The facts briefly were, that De-
fondants' sold to George D'WoIf, in Rris
tol, on "Wednesday, Dec. 9TH, 1925, l9e
boxes of sugars to be paid for principally
in a draft accepted in Boston at 90 day,
from the purchase, the debontures to be
also given as part payment--The under
standing was that the sugars were TO be
; delivered TO the purchaser when called
) for, TO be put on board a vessel lying in
Bristol, bound to Marseillcs, the purcbas-
or to deliver the securities stipulated, on
his return from Boston. A few boxes OF
the sugars were delivered on Thursday
and Friday. On Friday evening the pur.
chaser, who had returned from Boston,
made an assignment of his property for
benefit of creditors. On Saturday morn
ing, being called on by Babbitt for the Sc
curitlcs, ho stated that he had not then
seen a person in Bristol, by whom the nc
J ccptancG was to be endorsed, but gave no
notice of having made an assignment o.
his property.---On Saturday, IO3 boxes o
the sugars were put on board the vessel
On Sunday, Defendants having for Tho
first time ascertained the failure OF The
} purchaser, demanded the sugars that haC
, been delivered. The purchaser directs
the Capt. to deliver them, the terms OF thu
contract not having been complied will
on his part. This the Captain declined
doing, unless the bill Of lading which h'
had signed previous TO the goods bein.
/ put on board, was restored to him. Pre-
; vious to his going to Boston, the purchas
er had made ont an invoice, and forward
J cd the same with the bill Of ladng endors
{ ed over to the Plf. in New York, and hu
: drawn upon him draft Of 6OOO dollars
which Plaintiff had accepted. The Cap
] tain not receiving the bill Of lading, whc
: had been thus transferred, dcclihcs dcliv
= ering the sugars, upon which Defcndants
4 Babbitt and Browning, 20 on board nm
retake the sugars. The question ufde
!, this state offacts was whether the deliver
;, was conditional, subject to a complianc