Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1838-05-02


CilcvIr Couar-Tuesdsy, May before Judge
Edwards. w. Rayley -. Spencer q Corning.
This was an action to recover 1885 81 the amount
Of bill of goods sold 10 the defendants. The de-
fence that the goods were delivered after the part
nership dissolved and after notice Of such dis
solution had been published.
w. T. Boardman, examined.-Was clerk Of the
plaintiffs in April, 1896; witness then sold the goods
IN the bill, and delivered them the amount was
Sl39b52. The business was generally understood
IN this city TO be the business OF the defendants JOINT
ly, and TO be carried under the name OF ID. Spen.
Ger & Co. The bill was made out in this form and
delivered to Spencer They did business at Syracuse
In Onondaga, in this State; this was the trs bill OF
goods sold by plaintiffs TO defendants, as lar as the
waess's knowledge extended the defendant Cor
ming not present when the goods were delivered;
does not know Corning; had heard Of Spencers
circumstances, and that Corning was partner. Mr..
bayley knew Spencer before when Bayley lived at
Albany, as did Spencer; Spencer had been in Bay
ley's store.
Cross-examned. Witness sold the goods. but he
did not receive the individual note Of Spencer Spen-
Ger sent his note 10 the store for this bill of goods;
thinks he may have seen the note left letter al Sy
raeuse for Spencer to pay his clam-mght have men,
toned the note in the letter On 18th Sept, 1885, he
sold The bill of goods TO Spencer a. Co.; 10Th Of
November, 1886, he sold bill of goods to Spencer
alone.
Direct resumed.--Before he came to New York did
not know that Spencer had partner.
Edward Corning, examined.-Knows r. j. Corn
ing, the defendant; is distant relative of witness
last fall witness went with X. j. Corning 10 the plain
tf and defendant then said he was partner of
Spencers. October last, he said he had been part
ner with Spencer but that the same was dissolved
before this bill of goods was purchased. Corning
wished witness to go to Bayley in relation the as
signment made after the dissolution. Never dealt
with d.. Spencer g. Co.; in 1885, Corning bought
small bill of goods of witness. Don't remember that
Corning ever gave notice TO him (witness) that the
firm was dissolved. Thinks Corning was in the city
in the spring or summer of 1886 Don't recoect
hearing Of the dissolution of the partnership until last
fall
The case of Smith versus Rogers was then quoted
from II Johnson's Reports, p. 340 b, airing on this
case.
d. A. Comstock, examined. lis merchant. Sold
goods TO ID. Spencer & Co. in October, 1885; sold
them to r. J. Cornlng-he bought them in the name
of the firm On the Goth Of April, 1885, sold goods to
ID. Spencer
The notice Of dissolution was produced cut from
the Onondaga STANDARD, and dated 18th of May,
The note was called for to be cancelled, and on
being produced, the defendants introduced ii as evil
dence.
Charles c. Merchant, examined.-On Feb. |, 1887,
witness presented the note in question for signature
Mr. Bayley objected, and said should have the sig
nature OF the partnership
plaintiffs rested.
Defence opened.
James McDougal, examined.-He proved the pa
per in question be the paper published in the county
where The defendants transacted their business On
the 18Th of February, 1885, Corning ceased be all
active partner, and removed to Sablna. He bought
farm down on Bergen river.
The lease Of the store and the assignment to Spen-
Ger and another, not Corning, was introduced.
Cress-examncd.-Can't say whether the family
removed TO Sabina, till April or not.
l. A. Miller examned.-Is the printer of the "On-
ondaga Chief; Published notice Of the dissolution
of partnership for some weeks. Searched for the
paper last December, but could not find il. Kept
file of the paper till August, 1886. Never searched
the files OF papers 10 find the notice The notice
commenced IN Nov, 1885, and was published for or
weeks. Could not find that notice; has never
searched for papers from February 10 April June
1886. Thinks this notice published the latter
part of February or March, 1886.
Aaron Wood examined Resides at Syracuse !;
knows defendants thinks that the partnership dis
solved the latter part Of February first knew of il
then heard II from Spencer and Corning; thinks il
may have been in March; made enquiries for the
papers, sutceuld not find them the sign alter
ed; thinks the new sign was put up about the LIST Of
March; was frequently at their store should think
II was generally known that they had dissolved.
Samuel j. White examined.-ls merchant Of
thus city. Has sold goods TO Corning and charged
to d: Spencer q Co. on the 10th of April 1885, sold
ID. Spencer d Co bill of goods drew drafts for
the amount drew on ID. Spencer & Co. which
were discounted, one in Syracuse and one at Salina
Mr. Miller, recalIed-The paper had a circulation
Of 500; II went through Onondaga and the western
counties.
Mr. Hills in summing up for the defence, referred
to l6 Rasrs Reports, p. 1862 and observed that the
notice on the 18th Of May was Spencer's individual
notice and thar the witnesses swear positively TO
the notice in the Onondaga Chief"
MIR. klmball also for the defence took the same
ground aud referred 10 Johnson's Reports, D. BOO
where dccls on was made that n notice in one Ga
zete was sufficient, and alse 10 the 9th Cowan I'll ;
and Wendell, 1923
The following references were also made in the
course of the trial, as illustrating and bearing upon
the important point issue 10 the suficiency of the
notice Pnder vs.. Wilkes, Marsh, 24S; 5 Taunt ton,
6l2; Wrghton vs.. Pallan, Stark. 375; Woodford
vs. Darwin Vermont Reports 81; Lansing vs.
Game, Jshnson's Reports, 300 Graves VS.. Merry
Cowan, 70l Bristol Va. Sprague, Wendell, 423
Keicham vs.. Clark, 6 Johnson Reports D. l47 |;
Mar,lnvs. Walton | MCord, l6.
The defence also comprised the following state
nents-The partnership between Daniel Spencer e.
X. 5. Corning, commenced on the LIST day OF April,
1885, and was 10 continue for the term Of years
unless sooner dissolved by mutual consent. In Feb
1886, Spencerproposed TO purchase all Cornays inie-
rest in the establishment reserving TO himself all the
debts sse the firm and assuming pay all the debts
due fromit. To these propositions Corning acceded
snd on the 18Th OF February the dissolution was ef-
iected, and Corning retired wholly from the concern
On the lst Of March, Corning removed from Syra-
cuse &c Sslna, aad took no farther interest IN the
busn,ss. AT the dissolution, Corning took from Mr.
Spencer bond OF indemnity against all liabilities on
account oil the debts Of the concern, and all COSTS
The dIssolator advertised only in Patterson
Onsndaga Chefs the old sign was taken down, and