The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-12-28
Court of Com mon Pleas.


DEC. 27Charies Porter Samuel j. Beais and Thomas
H. YhitakerThis case was continued from Friday last.
for the seizure and sale of certain quantity OF
property in the carpet mandatory in Hudson County N
belonging to the plaintiff appeared that one Joseph
McEwen originally owned the property but by virtue OF
execution it passed into the hands OF James Bradley
Co., and thence in satisfaction of another writ the plain
tif became the possessor. He then entered into an
arrangement with the of Joseph McEwen and third
party named White that they should give him nine
mssory notes. payable certain dates, and that they
should continue to work the factory, with condition.
That in the ment Of the first note at matur
ty the plaintiff could enter upon premises and
cupy it, The not paid, but subsequently, to its
falling due the defendants issued execution against
John McEwen the partner OF White and sold the proper
found at the mandatory and which is claimed by the
plaintiff The examination OF the witnesses occupied
much time appears that the agreement was placed in
the part of John ncEwen and White he delivered
back to the plaintiff but the notes were not delivered up
void, and that his right of ownership was unmpaired
The Defence however, claimed that there was no revi
sion Of the contract by the plaintiff who was bound
every vesge of claim. That not having done so,
he was not legally the possessor Of the property,
but that the title was vested in either one of the three,
John Joseph McEwen, or White. The court in charg-
ing observed tna the title Of oil the parties was some
what obscured But if there had been tact rescson OF
the agreement and the parties had allowed the plaintiff to
and occupy then the detention of the notes did
not annul the right Of possession by the plaintiff But
the property then the defendants had right to levy
also commended that the defendant did not authorize
quen liable to the plaintiff Unless the jury were sa
sfed by the evidence that such order had been given
then the defendants not liable appeared that the
attorney for the defendants, who was possessed OF u
authority" to transact their business had received nstruc
tons from them to the sheriff to levy on the Nc
Even property and the sheriff accordingly did levy
the property in litigation 1t was for the jury to deter
mine how the words full authority" TO be interpre
ted and also the words McEwen property" If the jury
satisfied that the defendants knew that 1t was the
carpet factory which had been levied them they were
the and liable the form action brought
If not not. The defendants did not receive the full
amount of the SALE Their portion amounted to S29 3d.
tsy another execution In deciding the value OF the
perty in the of damages, the jury were to say
whether the prices brought at the sheris sale were fair
and proper and So they were to make te the basis oil
damages Another point for the jury to decide was how
far the leaving the McRwens in possession was not evil
dence of fraud and they to take their conduct into
consideration and say whether at the time OF the sale OF
the property by the sheriff they acted in the true spirit OF
ownership their acquiescence in that SALE or whether
they ignorant of the rights of the plaintiff Further
if the jury from the evidence believed that the Taint
had served notice of ownership on the defendants
previous their receiving the money from the sale on the
execution, they were not liable.
The Jury rendered verdict for the defendants
For plaintiff David Graham, Esq.-for defendants Jas
Brady Esq.
Oran Sherwood Jane M Fordham, Eree and others
This action promissory note for S2O5 6S given
by Caleb Fordham deceased to the plaintiff on the 18th OF
MAY 1913 for bill of lumber The defence set up the sta
limitations, also that they expected to show that
portion had been paid by the deceased in his life time It.
appeared that the OF SIG was included in the note
for certain quantity OF osts but which had been settled
for the counsel for the plaintiff abandoned the note
and sought but for the balance. Evidence adduced
to show that within the limitation act the deceased had
offered pay said balance but the tender objected to
unless the entire note retired This testimony was
rebutted and the Court charged that question Of
veacy between the Witnesses If they believed that the
deceased had acknowledged the debt within the time al
lowed by law then the plea of limitation barred; II
not the defence was good The Jury VIII bring sealed
verdict in the morning.