The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-12-01
Court OF Common Pleas.

Nov. 30-In the of Mcmillan vs. the Sheriff re-
ported by us yesterday being action for respas the
jury returned verdict for the defendant.
Benz amin Seiras VS.. Richard l.. Morris Wm II. Nor
ris and James y C. MorrsThis an action on pro-
missory of s4O7 g. made by Richard Morris and en-
dorsed by the other defendants The note produced
and d, admitted on the part Of the defence.
The case Tor the defence exhibited the following facts
note in question was drawn by the defendants and de-
vered to Samuel H. Jackson for the purpose of get
ting discounted at the Bank OF New York On arriving
there he found that discount day lift not
discounted to be returned to the defendant it
Jackson took the to Hart who merchant bro
kcr in Nassau street. and who promised discount
seixas who gave him for il $3.50 in cashsso were allow
ed on account OF an old debt due from Hart Sexas and
the balance $780, given in lottery tickets at an
vanced price hey oud that at which they sold by the
managers It was contended that the note given
Jackson without the authority of the defendants who had
received no consideration whatever for it, Jackson in his
examination, stated that he had received any money
account of from Hart Hart said he gave the money
never delivered it, and Hart said that he the max
ing way with it was the cause of Sharpes death.
On the part OF the defendant it was commended that the
and action dould be made to grow out Of it. If the
court held differently then the statutes making such
ding illegal in their spirit repealed The question
then whether the evidence, the plaintiff haa prov
ed himself the owner OF the note the valid and bona dc
owner.
In Judge Ulshoeers charge he directed the jury that
Morris competent witness for the other defendants
York, four days after its date. The protested
and afterwards returned SEXES who paid the he
had received for it. In the first instance the plaintiff ha
wing proved the note and the hand writing Of the endor
sers he was in law presumpvey entitled to recover
Now the question to be decided thwas the right of
the plaintiffs founded on an illegal consideration was
for the jury say whether the mixing up of the $50 old
debt the 500 worth of lottery tickets with
ney did not tnint and the whole
For his part the sdge said he clearly Of opinion
that the sale of lottery tickets rendered illegal beth
by by the constitution of the State Therefore
if they assured of the fact of their having been g
ven then the title must iail and the plaintiffs action be
void, on the ground of illegal consideration
eir dirt
for the defendants.
E. Cowles for defendants W. Barney for plaintiff
John f. Pdyr Us. james Pdrr.-Ths was action q
promissory OF the of $05 the interest and
all now amounting to s4e6o The note purpors have
brothers, and bakers trade who have unfortunate
ly fallen out The defence first that had been paid
question: m.S r.
as it now readspresumed to have been altered. to avoid
the outswng Of It. One witness testified very distinctly
to having seen this note in the year 1885, the time ofhe
great fire.
The judge granted nonsut.
For plaintiff, H. v. Vutee-For defendant T. J. Smith
hf Before Judge lnglis
Jsiius Graner and Henry Gransr jacob r Plat
finished wenow add few points Of the Judges charge
The Judge first recspulated to the jury the facts of the
@
has lien upon goods he must ate in particular way
He must demand for amount unquestionabIy due him.
and more The law holds the party down to precise
grounds There does not appear to be any difficulty to
the amount Of this lien. There made
out III ny SrOnentnhlL altnOugn not essentially
different On the other SIDE it appears that in January
l542 Mr. Plat advanced $3.50 in cash. either in checks
notes. and that he holds these goods security for the
amount think if Mr.. Plat had taken these goods, and
advanced them $780, he should he protected Here the
Judge laid down the old law and the law it now
stands upon the points Of this matter of edgng goods
leaving them for disposition II Mr.. Plat, auctoneer
city, did advance the $3.50 upon these goods then he
ought to be protected But is question rst whether he
did make the advance in good faith and under such cir
cumstances that he ought to be protected Blydon to
be believed then Plat did not make this Of money
in good faith because he knew that the goods belonged to
the plaintiff and that Gronenhall not the But
is for you to decide upon the facts Of the
Thejury directed to bring in sealed verdictand
the court adjourned. ~