Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1838-04-04

October. From the 10Th to the 10Th Of October no
vessel containing hay arrived in Charleston, and hay
then sold there for 100 lbs for cash from the
Goth to the 30th of October it sold for el50 cash
on the 4th Of November the hay in question sold at
el.60 on six months credit. When hay is sold
for cash, commission of IL per cent is charged ;;
and when sold on credit 5 per cent is charged. All
these facts were proved aad toe action was brought
to recover damages for loss of the Market for all
&c. &c. II TIalt. r. t,..g. ats.g
The defendants agreed to pay for every thing bun
the loss of market.
The Judge charged that this was the main question,
and that the plaintiff was entitled TO all the advan-
tages ne would have derived had Jackson performed
the original contract. 1t not necessary for the
plaintiff TO have made special agreement about the
loss Of market; if he sustained loss by the vessel
not sailing with all possible despatch, the defendants
must pay for that loss r
The jury foand for the plaintiff to the following
n,s,aa or os OF expenses at New York $685.
interest on that from the 9th of October, 1886 to
April z, 1883, SAILS; making total Of $2l74.29.
Common PLEAS April 3.-Before Judge Ulshoeffer.
N. w. West versus Bassford q Fleld.-This was an
acten to recover the balance of bill for Goals Mr.
II. West proved that Goals to the amount of $l49 81
were delivered 10 the defendants that they paid 800
and promised TO pay the balance The defence was
that the plaintiff had not weighed the coal and there
fore his contract was not valid and he could not re-
cover Mr. N. B. Blunt, for the defence, fought this
question most ably, but he could not prove that the
coal In question had never been weighed Mr. N. r.
Lawten swore that he applied to West to weigh the
coal and ne refused he also saw 40 loads leave the
yard unwelghed Coal was delivered on the wharf in
New York for $3.50 per ton ; it was sold for $lO5O.
Inc Judge charges that The plaintiffs conduct was
NOT that OF good citizen but the defendant was
bound to prove beyond all doubt that he had viola
ted the law in this particular instances if he did NOT
do this ne failed in his defence. Again. if he buys the
COAL receives it, and pays in part for IT, he cannot
then set up violation of the ordinance to Justify his
not paying the balance. Again. the law only fixed
penalty for violation of the same but a contract
was net necessarily violated by that violation
Mr.. Blunt called the attention of the court to Chttv
on Contracts p 23l where says that the distinctions
between n0la prohibita and nala in Sc is now de-
MED; and there can be no doubt that court would,
at the present day give full effect to the provisions
OF the statute forbdding an act to be done under
penalty, by deciding that contract grounded on
such act is invalid In the I'd of Easts Reports D. 1893,
in the case of Law versus Hedson, suit was brought
to recover the price of some bricks which were made
under the size stated in the statute; Lord Ellenbo-
reugh decided that the making Of such bricks was
fraud and violated the contract and he therefore non
suited the plaintiff. SO also in the case of druggist
who sold drugs 10 a brewer, and brought an action
for their value the Chief Justice said that in so SELL
ing the drugs, he knew they We're to be used fer an
illegal purpose, and he could not receiver the price OF
/ them. t-ar#
| Mr. Blunt excepted to the Judges charge; and the
Jury found for the plaintiff $5233