Morning herald., 1839-07-01
Court of Common Pleas.


JUNE 24-gAusiard Proler VS.. James Blom-
This was an action to damages for SANDER
Gus words spoken Of and concerning the character
of the plaintiff The plaintiff and defendant were
both of the tribe of Israel and dealers in old clothes,
Eau de Cologne, liquid backing, water proof iiqnIds
and other celebrated nostrums, and the arose
cut of dispute concerning boy, who mad been
transferred from the service of the plaintiff 10 the
defendant. When the plaintiff thought his boy had
been long enough with the defendant, ne sent Tor
him back and then the latter get into terrible pas
SION saving that sshis goot friend was one internal
swindler, a great big highway robber, got dam
thief" and applied other complimentary appeiations
to him; all OF which were proved. The defence set
up was that Blom could not have uttered the words
exusc why-he did not know syllable oi the In
slish language. Other witnesses, however were
brought forw ard who stoutly that Blom knew
quite enough Of English to say what plaintiff ayerred
ne did say The jury found Tor the p'''n''h-oa'
mages six cents-six cents costs.
5,lom VS.. Proier-ln this case the tables were
turned. and Mr.. Blom sought to recover a compen'
sation for certain damages which he had suffered In
his character by his goot friend MIR Proer VINO had
taken the liberty to assert that he, Bom, had been
branded the shoulder for certain nractions OF the
eighth commandment before he '.left his native
country for that countrys good. These hard words
were fully proved, and the jury gave Mr. Blom six
cents damages and six cents costs
Martin Loclman VS.. Phciaa s. Phsian This suit
was instituted by tho plaintiff 10 recover from the
defendants sum which was alleged 10 DC owe " MN
for WAGES. Ii appeared that IN the year 1871, the
plant /! was engaged BY James Phelan, To serve
as shopmaa in store which Phelan then Kept IN
10th street. This Phelan was brother OF the de-
lcndants' and they used often TO visit the Store ~
10Th street and appeared TO take great interest ~
the success of that establishment. In july, ls3s,
James Phelan off, leaving his relations To pay ms
debts, and il in proof that the iaher 81 Tue oe
PENDANTS came there and sold out the stock IN trade
and rec civ ed the proceeds thereof IL was also IN
proof that before the concern was naiiy closed Tue
defendants were in the habit of taking money from
the till, and acting IN other Ways as y tney nau
,ntor int he stalll
oT the defendants il was set up that James fheIan
had been put in business by his father, and tha the
brothers had nothing To do with the concern ~ ioh
street. In support Of this allegation, an aihda,n
from the abs scondee himself was adduced, aud the
testimony Of the cid gentleman offered IN support
thereof.
The Court left it for the jury to say whether the
defendants were partners or not. Verdict for the
plaintiff
JuSE 26.-Richard IT'eed and James BariceH vs.
Thomas x. lIeins.-AIr. M. Bacon stated the case
to the Jury. The learned gentlemen sand was no.
vel suit, and perhaps deeply important on account OF
its novelty iaasmuch as il was the first brought un
der the statute which had been passed ior the ex.
press purpose of relieving the Court OF Chancery o
this class Of The plaintiffs and the defendant
had been in partnership together, and the action was
brought to recover "a modicum OF certain monies
which il was alleged that the defendant had received
belonging to the concern. The statute was then
plaIAtif's allegation.
On the part of the defendant IL was set up that on
the dissoation Of partnership the assets were d-
vided into three parts, and that each partner rece
we'd his share and that both the parties to this suit
had executed admission Of this fact 10 tins the
plaintiffs counsel rejoned that such testimony was
insufficient, because II proved nothing more than
settlement up to certain time, but IN ord Tor the
defendant TO have made out his case, he should have
prsduced the books and have shown that nothing
was received by him subsequent 70 the date OF the
&C >nowledgments.
The jury, under the charge Of the Court directed
the parties to account to each other.
The Morality and Legality Of Political " ayers
Merritt VS.. Crooke-Mr. NJ. :. Bacon, with whom
was Mr.. Edmonds, appeared for tho plaintih, and
stated the to the jury. The learned gentleman
said IL action to recover the sum of SlVV,
which had been deposited in the hands OF the defend
ant as stakeholder at the last gubernatoria elec-
op. lie then read from the revised statutes the law
against gambling and wagers
After the wager was made, Mr.. hoxie proposed
that each party should sga and swear to an affidavit,
which the plaintiff expressed his Willingness to do,
but IIoxie never fulfilled his swn stipsation, and
then was that the defendant took the case out of
the court Of honor and put into court OF law, or
in other words notified the stakeholder that he was
not to pay the money il Hoxie should prove to
be tie winner.
Aaron Clark called by plaintiff, and sworn
MIR. O'Connor.-I want to ask this witness n the
contract respecting this bet is in writingl
Witness.-No Some tyne before the TALL election
wssin the Mayors Office, when MI. Hoxie and Mr.
Merritt came in.