Morning herald., 1839-07-01

them to sav what compensaton the plaintiff ought to
receive and charged them to find specially a. 20 :ns
value of the stock, and to apportion the comms. 81
on the amount OF stock recovered by the Pian',n
so to give him a certain per centage on Ns vaue
or in other words, for him to receive MS co"A,s
sions in stock, and in cash. His Honor further ai'
rected that a sealed verdict be brought In A. the
opening OF the Court on Tuesday.
Before Judge Talmadgs.
Laurence rs Herbeck In this case the jury found
for the paintilf-danages Sl75 cents, without re-
ference to the value of the Spanish stock taken Dy
the defendant.
Frederick IVeJer ys TIE German Reformed
Churci-Ihis was an action on bono gwen oy .ne
Trustees Of the Church. in the year 1857. TO secure
the sum of S600 which the plaintiff had advanced
for the of the Corporation The fact OF the ex-
isence of the defendants body corporate was not
disputed; bat the defence set up was, that the sea-
attached to the instrument was not the seal OF the
defendants, which in itself was suihcient 10 hVaii,
date the instrument, and that the trahsactioh couiu
not be lsuad in the minutes OF the trustees ais"
appeared in testimony that the Whoie humoer oi
Trustees were not present at the time the bond was
said TO be executed, and that only minority were
even notified that such meeting was TO take place.
On the part of the plaintiff, IT appeared that mere
schsm in the church, and that tour oi the
trustees seceeded from their duties, carrying win
them the seal Of the corporation and ALSO the records
of the charch In this dilemma the remaining por
ton of the trustees got seal made and adopted
a book of minutes and it was with this new seal,
and in the book, that the bond OF the plaintiffs
placed on record
The Court held, that the bondvas the act OF the
majority of the corporation, it Of no consequence
whether the old the seal was affixed TO IT, and
laid down the doctrine with respect TO the
minutes. The jury returned a verdict tor the PLAIN
tiff for the full amount claimed, and costs
John Shirac VS.. Me same.-This was another ac-
ton against the defendants to recover the sum
of 5000 which had been lent to the Corporation by
man named Landon and for which he took note ana
bond also II appeared that Landon got impatient Tor
his money and that Shirac who one OF the trus-
tees, paid him out of his pocket and took fresh
bond for the amount. IL was now c0ntended by the
detendent's counsel that trustee could not give
bond for body corporate, OF which he was an acting
member, to himself without vitiatins the transac-
tfon. The counsel on each side agreed 10 take a
verdict subject to the opinion Of the Court on this
question of law
Riddle and others VS. Maitland and others
This was action for breach oi agreement IN re-
fusing to accept number of bills OF exchange. II
appeared that in the year 1885, the defendants trans
mtted letters of credit to the house o! Johnsoa v
Anderson in the state Of Ohio, authorizing tsat firm
to draw on them for am unlimited sum; and on the
faith of that letter, the plaintiffs took bills on the
defendants to large amount; but their presenta-
tion in this city, the latter refused to accept them,
and the present action brought to recover the
amount without the formality OF an acceptance.
On the part of the defendants, II was set up that
the letter of credit was given to enable the hrm OF
Johnson 4 Anderson to purchase tobacco and snip II
for the use Of the defendants, which il was admitted
they had failed do; but Notwithstanding had drawn
the defendants and paid the bills to the plaintiii
for antecedent debt.
The Court held that this defence was invalid, and
the jury found for the plaintiffs