The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1843-04-23
superior Court.

APRIL 22.-Shindy vs.. Skdmore ct al.-This was
ton ofrespass the for unlawflly entering the
plaintiffs premises and for excessive levy under land
lords warrant Damages $1,000.
The plaintiff was tenant OF house in Spring street to
person of the name of Stevens The latter had mort
gagged the premises, and bill filed to oreclose the
mortgage, and under the bill the plaintiff appointed
receiver The defendant applied to plaintiff (as is usual
in such case to produce his receipts but the plaintiff
fused. The defendant then made affidavit Of two quar-.
ters rent being due $3.50. upon which he issued land.
lords warrant and seized for that amount 1t appeared
that arrangement entered into between plaintiff
and Stevens by which the rent reduced and that the
plaintiff only owed $l25.
The defence tender of amends, and that defendant
was justified in evyng in consequence of the refusal Of
plaintiff to produce his receipts
Judge VArDERPoEL charged the Jury in substance as
GENrLEMEr-This Is action trespass the case;
the plaintiff s German grocer, and the defendant is a
tmony that plaintiff tenant Of Stevens and that the
control OF his Stevens property taken from him by
defendant as receiver nnder an order OF the Court oil
Chsncery. An attempt made in the course ofthe
trial to show that he improperly apponed but gen
temen in my opinion this fact has not been
Counsel always open their fully and as strongly
as they but whether he in point Of fact receiver
and the manner in which he was appointed as far as re-.
presume that he got fairly would be doing great in
justice TO Mr. Skdmore that he had resorted to
his Office he is equally aensble any other person.
You not therefore, TO believe that heiobtained by
any unarnes or that ne stands SsiUre you ua.w
pointed some time In February last Alter which, it
that he had applied to plaintiff for his receipts that
plaintiff replied would not show them and told him
was none of his business Gentlemen, when you
come to the damages, this is cir
cumstance which you are not to overlook. You
must look at the conduct of both parties and
weigh the conduct Of against the other;
4 does not appear that the receiver applied any fur
Their. He then makes afdaviuand swears that there
two quarters rent due upon which he leveye land
lords warrant and put into the hands an officer and
leveyed the plaintiffs goods does not appear that
he used any unnecessary violence OPPRESSION or
he removed the goods II appears the plaintiff paid him
the next day and pay him th0remainder but he
called upon counsel who advised him that deiendent had
transcribed his authority and the plaintiff refused to con-
ummate the agreement and brought the present action to
recover back the S4 and such other damages as you
gentlemen might think him entitled to- His Honor re-
viewed the evidence commenting upon he went along
and concluded by telling the jury that II they believed
that the plaintiff had acted In the case was nor one
for damages, but from the evidence they believed ins
ne acted knowingly without authority, ney mus. YEA
500.
For plaintiff N. b. Blunt For defendant j. b. scoles