The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-02-22
Superior Court.

Before Chief Justice Jones.
the 18th of April lsi2 the defendant who extensively
engaged the agent for several vessels applied to the
plaintiff to purchase quantity Of sheathing copper The
price was agreed on and the quantity determined upon,
and in making out the BILL the Planiih enquiIed or
what ship the % ns Ss
and the note of the agent the present taken or
it, The defendant having failed about the time the note
due, the plaintiff sued the owners OF the vessel IN
this Court but failed in the suit, as the defendant VINO
the principal Witness swore distinctly that the cop
per was furnished his individual responsibnny
and in his capacity agent for the ship owners THIS
action brought against the defendant ior fraud ia
representing or allowing the plaintiff to make the sa's
the testimony ofthe defendant sworn to on the previous
trial The defence conended that on the form Of action
the plaintiff could not that the notes Of
could only be sued for The Court charged the Jury that
the for them to decide was whether the sale
credit Of the ship and owners or on the personal credit
the defendant without reference to any third party The
defendant had appeared been accustomed 70 a"
and dealing directly with the parties as well the mer
chant the ship owner The highest Court had decided
pose third party yet although the notes OF the agent
second party, may he held by the first party STILL IL
the agent second party became nsovent the first party
the debt from the third party agent at
the time Of purchase in good credit as IN the pre-
sent case il would be carrying the law OF iien very
far indeed it, after having accepted the notes
OF that agent you could then come upon the third party
II would be still more it, as in the present case the
resided foreign country and the ship was Tor
egn bottom. However jury had the evidence, and
was for them TO say whether they believed the defendant
had perperated fraud the plaintiff they were OF
opinion that there was nothing fraudulent in the transac
on then the plaintiff could in this form oil ac
ton IT, the other hand they believed that the goods
sold upon the credit of the ship andowners then the
verdict would DO for the full amount OF the bill OF purchase
with interest," and also the OF the suit brought by
the plaintiff against the owners.
The jury after very short absence returned verdict
for the defendant.
For plaintiff II. S. Dodge for Defence w Blatchford
suydam, Reed 4 Co. Us. Houston f. Dederer.-I'hs was
an action to recover back rent The plaintiffs rented
from Mr. Beam two stores fronting West street on the
Of Cedar street. at yearly rent Of 400 per an
The plaintiffs occupied the store adjacent the cor
ner from February LIST to the LIST April when they sublst
the premises to the defendants at yearly rent Of $1,000
per annum to be paid quarterly During the year the
street in very bad state and about August the plain
s sought deduction from the rent, giving as reason
that their tenants expected it, and they would have to
give it, as the state OF the street was very injurious TO
their business. Mr. Beam, the landlord OF the premises
deducted 5000 from the rent OF the two stores but the
plaintiffs did not allow the quota OF reduction in the rent
Of their tenants who claim that they have right to
such reduction, The question for the jury to determine
was whether from the testimony they believ ed that in
case reduction was made by the principal landlord the
reduction fthey believed such was the understanding
between the parties then verdict for the quota would be
in favor Of the defendants
For PLAINTIFF Mess.. Sherwood and Benton for de-
| tendant, Messrs. Lawton and Henry.
Before Judge Oakley.
"WEDNESDAY, Feb 2lNathSnieI Pierce Gilbert II.
Wilkins George b. Rollins and james b. Genfieorh-
This action to the face OF draft Of $522
given by the plaintiff to the defendant Glentworh, who
In partnership with the other Defendants as auc-
tioneers The plaintiff claims that the draft given to
sustain the firm, while the defendants deny this and say
that given for the individual benefit OF Gientwoth
The case Is not yet decided.
For plaintiff Messrs. Edmonds and Buckham. For de.
| PENDANTS, Messrs. Dunscomb and Crist