The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1845-10-25
Superior Court.

Before Judge VanderpOel.
OcT o4-.4rrsthaH vs. LriBg sfOn, ct 0fs-The jury IN
this case already reported rendered verdict Tor PLAIN
tiff, S433 81 and cents costs
of Trael-This was action to recover damages for
false imprisonment also for assault and battery The
parties are Jews and defendant keeps store in the vi
cnity Of Chatham street Plaintiff and his brother went
to defendants to trade and in payment Of the
cbarges in the course of business paid him a 81
bill which he alleged was bad and he had the defendant
and brother arrested and taken to the on
charge Of sndeavoriug to pass counterfeit Dis !, ap
bill to be good when Isaacs and his brother were dis
charged. II set up in defence that the bill was
case Of the brother Of also put to the jury
subject to the decision the case OF the plaintiff in the
first scO ad ~ ni in boh su
blanchard, Elmer 4 Co. VS.. Eugene Gronsssft-Acuon
brought by firm doing business az new nr $500
and the other for $4,000 which were protested Tor non
payment and returned to plaintiffs verdict LOT PAIN
iis subject to the opinion OF the court
Before Judge Oakley.
John Caller vs. John r. 7iliyou Action for excessive
levy for rent under landlords warrant already refer
redto Decentralization under the statute YER
dict for plaintiff 1858 damages and cests -,
Defeated Claim on Insurance.-Naphfah Ezekiel
rs. The Croton Insurance Company.-This was an ac-
tion-the first case ever contested by the Croton Insu
rance Companyto recover So $50, the alleged amount
of loss night in the month Of April last
by fire on the premises Of the plaintiff cigar dealer IN
Nassau street. opposite the office OF the New York Herald
The amount insured for was $4,000 and the balance was
asserted have been lost by the e On the part OF the
defence it alleged that the claim was fraudulent on
two grounds-rst thattthessore was frauduleny nred
and secondly that the amount laid far exceeded the ac
tual loss sustained Mr. Bell keeper Of the Rams Head
Tavern was called in evidence the first point and es
tilted that the fire originated in the store of the planti
that forcing the door, the fire to be in the
middle Of the floor surrounded BY cigar boxes and other
combusble materials One of the assistant engineers
other witnesses corroborated the evidence
II was likewise commended the second point that the
actual valuation of goods in the store at the time did
not exceed 81 OO0 and offered in evidence that
what remained after the fire sold only for S23 although
nut partially destroyed On the part of the plaintiff,
bills purchases different to the amount OF
81 6Ol showed and was acknowledged that the
sales amounted to the amount Of 81 $50 The books
not produced, however, in confirmation OF these
allegations which circumstance the Court directed
the attention Of the jury.
The Court in its charge stated to the jury that II they
considered fraud TO have existed in the firing Of the
premises they find for defendant provided they
think plaintiff himself party to the fraud II they
10 not consider they must go to the other point and
if there charge. If there was and made
with design TO defraud the Insurance Once then the
policy is wholly void but if the charge In the
opinion of the jury from mistake, they are
liberty it. As regards the Insurance Com
pany under the circumstances of the casa was their
duty defend the suit, whether they succeed or not
rhe jury after being out hour two, returned YER
dict in favor of the Company (defendant).
For plaintiff, Mr. Edward Sanford and Mr. H. P. Bar
Der for defendant, Mr.. s. Sherwood