Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1840-10-17
Court Of Common Pleas,


Afoert ID Bishop VS. Charles Fitzgerald. The
piauti In this case, is builder and contractor in
this city, and the defendant is a lieutenant in the
British Navy. The action was brought under con-
tract which the parties entered into concerning the
Brigantne Eagle, which was captured by II. b. M,
Brig Buxzard, on the cost of Africa and brou
this port for adjudication This was in the summer
OF 1882 and it will be remembered that in the latter
part Of the month Of August violent gale occurred
which forced several vessels lying At the Quarantine
On shore, and amongst others the Brig Eagle,
one OF the Buzzard's prizes. The Eagle lay ashore
for days, and set naught all the efforts OF the
crew to extricate her The defendant then made ar
rangement with the plaintiff to .aul her off within
given time. The plaintiff to receive four hund red
DOLLARS and to have the aid OF twenty men from the
Bszzard.
The first attempt the plaintiff made failed, and a
fresh agreement was entered into, and time al
lowed him to get the Eagle off in. This also failed
| and third attempt made, which failed also
and then the commander of the Brigantine consider
ing that the plaintiff could perform the Job made
another agreement with Captain Clarke, who after
considerable cxertions with the aid Of steamer and
the crew OF the Buzzard, got the Eagle off the Shore
AID brought her to the Dry Dock.
bishop, the plaintiff in the present case, applied
Tor payment OF the $4OO, and being refused he
rested Lieut.. Fitzgerald, by the Of Ft,dell in
the Circuit Court of the United States which action
was dismissed by Judge Bets, and an action for n
false arrest commenced against Bishop IN that same
Court, which is still pending The present proceed
ings were then instituted, and the foregoing facts
elected from the witnesses on either side.
The Jsry under the charge of the Court found a
verdict for the defendant For plaintiff, Burr and
Benedict. For defendant, Charles Edwards.
Samuel J. w. Barry VS. Mouii0n, Bullock, and
Le'cis Lyman.-The plaintiff in this case is book
keeper, and the defendants well known none
tary firm in Wall street, formerly doing large bu.
sfness as brokers and agents. The action was
brought to recovert the sum Of S94 7l00 alleged to
be due for certain arrears Of salary which had &C
crued between 1887 and 1889. IL appeared that in
the fall Of Is 6 the pl-nf entered the service OF
the defendant, but that no agreement was made with
him in respect OF salnry. Several we're paid
on account, but settlement took place. After he
kept the books for about six MONTHS plaintiff wrote
note to the firm, requesting settlement. One OF
the partners then setting off to the West Indies
and he left sort OF commission with the cashier to
arrange with the plaintiff, which not carried out
owing to the parties disagreeng as TO terms
Plaintiff thinking his services worth s 1900 which
the Cashier thought himself not authorized to give
but offered $3.50 at the very outside. Things went
on in this way until the plaintiff had received during
the first year the Of 81 ASP . In the year fol
lowing the house Of the defendants failed for half
million Of dollars, bat the plaintiff still continued TO
attend the office, and to keep their books as well as
those Of the Staten Island company, for which the
defendants agents. until the fall Of last year
when he left, and sent in his claim for salary.
For the defence II was set up, that after tn
failure OF the defendants their csntract with tho
plaintiff terminated, aud that he only attended Il
| please himself, and by way OF amusement, havins
nothing else to do. On this point the testimony
| was somewhat contradictory.
On the part of the plaintiff, il was shown that HI
was paid money account after the failure and
subsequent to Of the defendants telling him thai
there was nothing for any Of them to do"
His Honor charged the jury, and ecaptulated al
the points OF the The Jury were locked ut
for three hours. and not having agreed on verdi CT
the Court adjourned, and dircated sealed verdict
IL was stated in the course Of the case. that IN,
Plaintiff bad offered to settle the claim for 500.
Counsel for Plaintiff John w. Edmonds-for de
PENDANTS, Dudley Sclden.