The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-07-14
Common Pleas.


july l3.-Beiarain Broom vs. the Mayor, Cooperation,
&c. of Nep York.-This action brought to reco.
compensation damages for in juries susta ined
the plaintiff in consequence OF the culpeble negligence
Of the defendants. IL appears that the plaintiff with a
Mr.. Address, returning home about O'Clock the
night of the 10Th November last, in q wagon and on
turning from the Bowery into Third street his horse and
wagon came in contact with large sugar box which
had been placed in the middle of the by the
endant without any light being placed there
to the drivers of vehicles OF the obstruction and
in consequence of The collision the plaintiffs horse be
came manageable, ran away, upset the plaintiff and
bruised and injured him seriously that he confined
for ten days. and is not recovered wholly yet the
defence it contepCed that the box placed in the
position described protection for vehicles from dam
age that might be sustained by falling into large hole
which had been made for the purpose of attaching
topcock to the main pipe Of the Croon waterthat the
moon was one hour Highland that the accident was
wholly attributable to the plaintiffs negligence want
OF skill In driving. The obstruction in question, il
understood under the of the police officers
the upper Office who unable to see they
the stoop through the smoke which emitted from
The contested at every step by Mr.. Cowdrey
for the corporation, and Mr. David Graham with whom
Mr. X. f. Winslow) for the plaintiff after long
absencehe jury returned to the Court with verdict for
the plaintf--damsges 800.
Benz. Brown and Samuel 4ndreas VS.. the Mayor, Com.
raonaity, &C. of NeV York-Ths action embraced the
material facts the preceding, with the addi
ton of Mr.. Andreas as plaintiff, he sueing wi Mr..
Brown partners to compensation in damages
for the injury done their horse wagon ana harness.
The plaintiffs well known house mevers and at the
time of transaction in their business
for Mr.. Jno H. Rowland The jury found for the plain
tihs-aamages 500.
Maria E. WILSON vs. The Mayor and Corporaiion-In
this the defendants ued for egectng max
at the Of 4oh street and 7th avenue and
thereby causing considerable damage to the properly
owner of four lots and house on the above location
aud that owing to the grading of the road and the
OF sewer to carry off the water had I'd there
the depth owo or three feet and rendered her house
tenantabe twas also proven that the walls had settled
down rom the same cause and the foundation been
dermined.
nonsuit was moved for by the CORPORATION
the ground that the suit The Corporation had
often been sued for negectDg to repair but
cessty Of reservng the question for full bench His
Honor then charged that II the Corporation liable it
ud only be for the loss of the rent while the
were actually untenantable.
The jury found for the plaintiff 500 67-sub
ject to the opinion Of the Court.
For plaintiff, Mr. Fauchet. For defendant. P. A. Cow
drey.
Marin Co. VS.. Monmouth B. Hart, she,if.-This was
action against the Sheriff for loss sustained by the
plaintiffs in consequence Of the neglect of the defendant
or his deputies Messrs Marvin Co., who extern
sive wholesale grocers had years ago business
whe became indebted to the plaintiffs large IT,
being little less than $4,000. bond for the amount due
WAS ultimately gwen and some twelve years ago Van
osen confessed Judgment but execution not issued
until the month OF February 1912 The execution
placed in the hands OF the Sheriff by Mr. Colt profes
sional gentleman, by whom II issued, and deputy
OF the defendant levied Van Hozen household furni
ture at his house In Broome street. and on quantity
liquors at his store in Spring street. BY some means
the plaintiffs to this suit, and hence this action was
brought
Mr.. BLUNT counsel for the defendants, contested The
at its and before the facts elicit
ed from the witnesses legal grounds he raised many
objections TO the admissbty of the docume nary test
mony, amongst which the judgment record he oh.
jected to this document the ground that il was judg
ment record, given to firm which differed from the
plaintiffs to this suit but that objection overruled
inamuch the plaintiffs described in the record
survivors sfthe party alluded to- In the next place
he objected that execution could not issue upon ud
ment confessed after two years from the docketng with
of the Court But here twelve years had beer
suffered espse and proceedings had been had b.
scre acias revive In this plaintiffs in their
declaration endeavored to meet the by varying The
grounds of action In tho first count il laid for
levy ing and not returning when there sufficient
pay the debts next for not ing when there plenty
Of goods, and for not returning and thirdly simply 70
returning; and the learned counsel for the deendas
contended that he had the right TO go beyond the execu
ten and enquire into the correctness of the
proceedings which he argued were irregular and h.
therefore asked the Court for n nonsut.
Mr.. OERanD replied, but before the case was decide
the Court adjourned.