Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1839-11-27
Gem mon pleas.
Before Judge IngIIs.

Mitchell v. Tobias.-Ths was action pro
mssory drawn by the defendant in favor Off M.
Henriques, and indorsed BY him to one Isaac Phil
lips, and by him to the plaintiff The note
was put in aud proved. IL was dated Sd May, 1888,
Mt twelve months, for 500.
For the defence, J. M. Henriques called TO the
stand, who stated that he wa. employed by the de-
son Canal Stock time. He executed the order,
and at the expiration Of the time, Tobias unable
20 deliver the stock, and Henrques had 10 settle the
dlis renee with the purchaser. For this amount the
defendant gave the noe in question. The witness
testified that at the time he made the sale, be did
not know whether Tobias had the stock or not. He
osce saw certificate Of such stock in his hand Bat
The stock bills Of Henriqses were produced, and
appeared that l5O shares OF stock were sold, and
that fifty ofthem were settled for.
The transfer clerk Of the company proved that
Tobias had not been stakeholder since the lst Of
January, 1888
Isaac Ph,llps was called BY tho plaintiff :. coun-
sell and he testified that he had taken the note in
question from Hsnriques for its value. and that too
before it arrived at maturity. day or two before
the note was due he passed II away for the amount
on the face, minus per cent, to the plaintiff in this
salt.
On the part Of the defendant il was contended that
the note was entirely void, though in the hands Of
isnocsnt holder, according to the provisions Of the
stoc lobbing law. See vol Revised Statutes, page
no Msny eases were cited, and among others that
Of Ward W.. Wan Dazsr-zd Halls reports-Page
For tho plaintiff II was commenced tnat tue note
could not b void in the hands Of an innocent
holder aud that Mitchell tosk u q plaintiff In good
faith.
Bat said the learned gentleman, IL il were not 50,
the amount would not be disputed by any person out
Of w all street-nor In the precincts OF that empo
Ram of rascalty either, provided there existed so
much honor . chivalrsc thief would own 10 the
| possession Of. t
On other grounds, though, he claimed the verdict
from the jury, for Il not given for . stcckjob.
hing transaction, Hsnrqses having paid the differ
snce m proved in evidence, and the note hav ing
| been given to MIN for the debt due.
The iury under the charge of the court, found for
the piaisuG- damages S3ll 50.
Counsel Cor plaintiff. j. +. Judah-For defendant
| Il Van Wrinkle.
Manus FYanneiiy, in action Of frcspass de bsnis
osperfafis 1t appeared from the statement ct the
plaintiff COUNSEL and from the testimony adduc.d
that in the month of February last the plaintiff wa,
in possession OF marble yard and the stock thereof
| which he valued at 600. Abost the middle Of thai
| month the two defendants with number 81 men In
their employ, came and took possession Of the pre-
misses and ris ct urnis carried of all the stock ant
stones The plaintiff arrived before the defendant
had completed their operations. and row, Of course
ensued; in which he got worsted This action wa
therefore instituted to get satisfaction In the shap
OF damages a
| On the part Of the defendant, il was set up tina
NIanus Flannelly purchased the stock Of marble
etcetera, at sheriff sale, on judgment obia'ns'
by this plaintiff against the other defendant, NJ
chae Flannelly, but this replied to by the plain
ltiF's coanscl proving that Mauns only bcusm r
account az the plaintiff, hat he advanced the none
to pay for the purchases, and took possession
them. e4@
Ills honor chsrged that tresppss bad cer,s'n'
been committed, and 4 was Tor the Jury 70 s'y "ha