Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1838-01-18
SUPERIOR CouRr.-Jan. 18th.

SUPERIOR OOCRT.-Jdn. litn.
The Corporation of the City of New York versus
Henry Cornell.-Tkis was an action against the de.
PENDANT for violation of the city ordinances in sell
ling meat without license. The Jury in the court
below gave verdict for the defendant as was aedg-
ed entirely in opposition 10 the evidence. The mark
ct committee of the Common Council directed the
be carried by certiorori TO the Superior Court,
This was done. But since the case has been pending
IN the Superior Court, the Supreme Court has estab.
lshed the doctrine that acten for a penalty for
violation of the statute OF the state, ordinance
of corporation, Judgment in favor Of defendant
will not be reversed, although the verdict be entirely
against evidence. In the opinion delivered by the SG-
peror court in the present case they say that the
dict for the defendant entirely unwarranted by
the evidences yet under the authority of the recent
decision of The Supreme Court they cannot reverse
the judgment.
Hofaas rersss George Wade.-This was an ac-
ton brought 10 recover $780, the amount Of note
held by the plaintiff which the defendant had endor
sed for his brother Defendant Is of the firm of Camp
bel Wade q Co., Of l23 Broad street, flour mer-
chants; and endorsed the bull for his brother last
April Now il appears that there are two George
Wades, as well as Two John Smiths, in this city ;
George Wade the flour merchant, who transacts bu-
sness in Wall street. and George Wade the barker
who also lransacts business in Wall street. For the
plaintiff IT was proved that when the note became
due il was not paid and the notary sent his boy 10
notify Mr. George Wade Of the fact. The boy testi-
fed that he went out, saw George Wade, told him of
IL, and received for that the affair would be
settled in twe three days. For the defence, il
proved that at the tune The boy SAID he called on
George Wade, that the real George Wade was in Bos-
ton. George Wade the barber said, that the boy
called on him, and he said he knew nothing about il:
after this he received a lawyers letter, and went 10
the lawyers office and explained all about II. The
lawyer, however, swore that he never saw George
Wade the barber, and never had any explanation with
him, because he never spoke with him at all. The
Judged charged that there was notice of protest
sent, and the jury found for the defendant
MAsISE CorRr, Jan l7.-HIbbred versus Charles
Hunt-This was action brought by the brother of
the Weehmsster General against the defendent who
is city weieher, for violation Of the city laws reg
ulating the monthly returns 10 be made by the city
weighers 10 the Weishmaster General.
Mr. Hibberd, the weighmaster general testified
that he did not sue the defendant in his own name,
because it was necessary prove that Hunt had not
made the necessary returns TO hire. The suit was
brought al his recommendation. Witness is not in
teresied in this sat- neither has there been any an
Outstanding about costs. Is weigher general.
Directed 10 "a a witness on that account.
The court decided that he could not be used as
witness.
Mr. f.. briggs testified that he is a state weiqher;
knows Hunts Handwriting 4returns were handed
in from Hunt; they were sworn TO the LIST OF jan
uary; the returns were made on or about the day
that they are sworn to; did not see Hunt make any
previous returns should have known of If he had
made any he was IN the office when he brought
those returns.
The counsel for the defence admitted that Mr.. Hunt
was sworn into Office the 18th Of June.
Six monthly returns were then produced; and these
were admitted to have been taken from the file Of the
weigher generals Office. They were Hunts hand
writing.
The case rested here, and the plaintiff relied for
verdict the fact that the returns were not handed
in the proper time viz every month but sent IN
all together The law on the subject is in the l63d
chapter OF the laws Of New York relative TO the city
page 206 section 18th, and reads thus THE weigh
masters appointed by the Common Council are re-
CURED TO make monthly report under oath
to the weiqher- general, Of the varous kinds Of
merchandise weighed by Them together with the fees
received for the same, under penalty Of s25 for
each and every neglect, with the costs OF the suit
which NAV he brought by any one"
The counsel for the defence moved for a nos.suit
on the grounds fret that the proof on the part Of the
plaintiff must 90 10 show that the returns 50 neglect