Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1839-05-23

Before Judge Belts.
MAY, 22.-Cssfo~ Assss C~ss.--S. n Dcrr, -
0ls. Vs. Jesse Host-nr. Lord stated TIE ease "
the jury. The learned gestle.ss said va an &c
insixnifissnt amosut Of dssy pad the defendant
by the plaintiffs but which Involved the ssus asa.
q an important constrseticn put aros ,ne sAr'n
Nv lie fcllowias passage 10 the act ef Congress.
passed in july lSs the plaintiff claimed 10 import
the article he should produce To them Tree "i asy
And be further enacted a's,ers The, N. isle-,ss -
cd and .ched sens table hsen linen eassrc worstss
stuff goods shsw other manufactures a ss % q which
silk shall be the material q chief ssse soae
from this side Cape sf Good HOPE eresP, sewing STA
In the month Of November, ISIS, the paisiifis i'm
ported in the steamship Liverpool package mark
ed S. T. d., No. 50, containing quaatity of best
legee twist" composed OF silk and moha,r. onthis
package they were charged duty Of 40 per cent,
ad raIorem, which amounted TO SsbV2. This charge
was paid, under protest and they now claimed its
turn at the hands Of jury.
A clerk to the plaintiff proved the payment 81 the
duties, and that the sample prodaced In Court was
taken from the original packages.
Eloyd Smith, a merchant tailor proved that the
article produced in Court solely used for "tse
construction of button holes" aud that tailor, or
taoress could sew with IL IL instead Of sew
ing silk
On the part of the defendant several Custom house
officers called, who swore that they had always
charged the same duties the article produced IN
Court, sewing silk but when asked what was
the of the article, they all admitted it TO bear
no other denomination except " twist"
The District Attorney said he should prove the
plaintiff S no farther.
The jury, under theScharge OF the Court found for
the plaintiff-SSS So damages, and six cents costs
For the plaintiff, Mr. Lora-for the defendant, b.
+. Butler, Esq.
Hubbard ct ais, VS.. Morgan ct als.-This was an
action brought to the of Sl0 49, with
interest, being the balance Of account current,
not disputed, that the plaintiff had due to him from
the house of Morgan, Ketchum & Co, of Wall
kArn hnvu ffar IN ho
settled by the Jury, which was whether Knowles
Taylor, general or special partner in the firm
Of Z. NJ. Morgan Co. 1t appeared that in the year
1887, Mr.. Knowles Taylor entered into limited
partnership with Morgan and others, and paid in
cash capital of $4,000. The usual acknowledgment
made before the Recorder, and the advertise
ment provided for by the act, published in two
of the public papers of the city.
On the part the plaintiffs, one of the clerks Of the
firm of Morgan & Co. was called, who deposed to
the correctness of the account, and to the balance
due to plaintiffs, and to the fact that Mr. Taylor
In the habit of coming to the office, but did not take
any part in the business
The counsel for the defendant pressed this wit
ness very closely, as to his knowledge Of the de-
PENDANT Taylor and of his being only limited part
ner, asking him if il was not much matter of
notoriety in Wall street that he was only special
partner, as that Prime, Ward a. King were general
partners.
witness-I do not know that they are general
partners.
Counsel-Then, sir, for a clerk in the street you
The Plaintiffs counsel having rested, Mr. Hall
the part of the defendants submitted TO the Court
the proofs Of his client having entered into special
partnership only and that he not liable beyond
the $4,000 which he had contributed.
The Counsel for the plaintiff then submitted the
following propositions, and agreed that the
should be given TO the Jury under the opinion of the
Court thereon.
st That the acknowledgment improperly taken The
statute shall be made before judge Of the Supreme
Court, the CHANCELLOR Circuit Judge OF Judge OF
County Court this before Recorder Rke who
neither the other.
9nd That drafts used in the Of the firm the
Company used which expressly prohibited by the
following section Of the statute.
business Of the partnership shall be conducted under
firm which of the general partners only shall be
inserted without the addition Of the word Company any
other general and # the If other special part
shall be used In such hrm with his pvy he shall be deem
ed general partner"
His Honor said that no did not think the Recorder
a Judge within the meaning of this statute but
that necessary for him to decide that point
because the defendants had violated Of the main
provisions Of the statute by using the term Company,
and he should therefore direct the Jury to find for
the plaintiff for the full amount claimed.
Verdict for plaintiff, damages Sll 900 and costs.