The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-09-14
Marine Court.
Before Judge Sherman.

sBrr. l3-Peter Nc Gfnnis vs. James Nc Ginnis-.9c.
tionfor Payment for Services as BsrEeeper-The par
ties are brothers, from the Green Isle. The defendant
kept grocery the OF Broad and Front streets
and the plaintiff tended bar for him from November,
to July iela and also IRON September 1912 to May
lS4S and tor this latter period is camed The
plaintiff proved services, but rather unfortunate ia
the witness he called as to the value of such services
For the Defence was osi ed that the plaintiff to
this country from Ireland and while out of employ
the defendant allowed him TO remain in his house. and
between the months Of July and september, isaa the
plaintiff returned to Europe, and received ten soveregns
from his brother to pay expenses aad was again allow
ed to serve at the bar his return On setting up bust
for himself the defendant became his security but
he failed, and down his brother for this
claim The jury returned verdict for the plaintiff in six
cents.
For plaintiff, Mr. VOORHEES,. For defendant, Asst AID
Henry
Thomas B. Cunning versus John Rurdeu-.fction
for recovery of Renf-Singuior Case Of Seduction
The plaintiff in this SUIT the student and subsequent
y the partner Of the defendant, who carried business
at No. 80 Chambers street, dentist. By he terms OF
agreement them the defendant rented from the
plaintiff the house jointly occupied by them for year
IRON the LIST May lSt3 to LIST May 1884, at 81 100 per
num- to be paid monthly, and this action is to recover the
rent accruing from August to september. amounting to
$780, The sealed agreement was offered IN evtence and
being admitted, the plaintiff RI SITS
For the Defencs-Peads non est fdcum set of to gene
raj and gvs notice otspecia matters Firstwitness
called was Dr. HARVEY BUKpELL-l am acquainted with
the parties; brother the defendant left the ofce in
street before hes September and did business
in my Office in Broadway He absent from this city
the LIST August and was also absent in May or June
last at Ohio he there OF the deranged state
OF his domestic affairs; he had property; the schedule
shown the property he lived unhappily
with his wife and children, partly in consequence the
of the plaintiff in the family. noticed that when
ever Mrs Burde wished to consult on family matters
that sh preferred the advice Of The plaintiff to that of the
defendant; when her husband was ILL., she placed him I'M
der the especial charge Of the plaintiff, who pre-
vented me from calling to see my brother even
in in my professional capacity ! was opposed TO
not think the Homeopathic treatment calculated to
store him to health The plaintiff said that my brother
haa not employed me aeanow
noticed in my visits my brothers, that whenever Mrs
Burde was sitting beside the bedside OF her husband
came in she would leave her post and take seat beside
him, apparently very haepy with him; ! did not call
called at the request Of my sick brother
Cross Examined-Plaintif AID witness not
speaking terms there had been some unpleasantness
arising from rvalry,in brsness-I OF the pro-
fesson, and both plaintiff. and defendant wished me to
remove away from Chambers s,reet-plainti told me II
would leave, he would that my brother paid the
OF the house. My brother and wife lived happily to
gether most married folks do; there little
family jars but nothing hey ond the common incidents of
not fond couplesthey slept together and walked
out together. Before plaintiff student, thought
she was very much attached TO my brother-I have
themn bed ogether do not know what they doing
at he meI have been friendly terms with Mrs Bur
dell since her marriage until had to doubt her
duty to himl introduced her to my brother He was not
Jealous of the score Of matrimonial difficulty but
simply from rivalry in business. MIRA Burdell gave me
to understand that my presence in her husbands house
agreeable to her. and plaintiff threatened that he
would kick out ofthe door ever put foot inside
aganthis was after the transfer OF the house Doctor
Ball. the homeopathic ply sicsn attended my brother,
and consider that the arsenic injured him-Dr UndrI-
hill brothernlaw to my brother and Dr. Gray also at
tended but only at consultation at which was prese
though the plaintiff would have elected me he could,
because opposed to the pursued disagreed
with the other doctors as to the cause OF his illness
thought inf alton the bowels, and told them
The defendant is a strict Grahamite (and truly his
looks verified the words Of the wiIness do not know
tablet may have been three four years since
they slept together; they have not done SO, far
know, sHce his ills ess in lS42deendant slept at my
house, in Broadway, from about the 25th of Augustus
sgn put up there about the LIST September have
seen Mrs Burde sitting the window since that period
Il understood from Mr. Lewis clerk OF the plaintiff that
she had left town with her children for short time, in
with the psint have heard tn father was at til
house. but cannot tell whether he bearded there
WILLIAM PARsoNs-I am a dentist know the parties
in this action Il have slight acquaintance with Mrs
Burdel-l was Dinc months at so Chambers street. of
and on-my term terminated in June, is42 cannot say
that ever saw any thing decidedly improper. I will
tell you what did see. On occasion, as went up
stairs to the wok roem on the third story saw Mrs.
and then thought Mrs. Burdel little confused
The Doctor was sick at the time confined his ROOM
The thought entered my mind, when saw them come
OUT that there had been something improper gong be-
tween them she appeared rather ruifed There are
work benches in the room
Gross essmned.-I thought that the plaintiff was as
child have set up with MIN several nights and had
opportunities Of seeing the conduct ofthe psinti-t
KIND The defendant while sick, complained thatthe
were going to kill him with arsenic. do not know to
whom he alluded. Mrs Burdsl had no particular bus .
ness IN the work room, Unless it with the
plaintiff during the Illness efthe Doctor The other stu,
dents had access to the work room but it was chiefly oc
cupied by the plaintiff and myself when preparing our
plates &c; cannot say that saw anything positively
MARY BAneHtr-l know the parties in this action-wss
aseryant in d. BuTdels family for the past years
/ an seven month";
Here the counsel after consultation it being O'Clock,
with the consent OF the Court adjsurned until O'Clock
70 morrow (ThursdayD when rich disclosures are
| ton.
For plaintiff, Mr. Voorhees,. For defendant, Messrs.
| Rudd and Stewart.
| 8o- An application has been made to the " com.