The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1845-12-19
Common Pleas.
Before Jud0e tJls,oef1ar

Dye lS-- Warren M Jenkins u.s. Bsnjann SfiisceH ef
amounting altogether to SOL. After the jury
and the plaintiffs counsel had stated the Of the
defendants came into court and stated that Mr. Warng
his counsel engaged in Brooklyn could not attend
and hoped the might be allowed to stand over The
Judge said, 1t lay with plaintiffs counsel whether he
would proceed MIR. Goddard said there were
already great laxy the part of the defendants and
he would proceed He then read evidence taken de bn
to prove hand writing &C., and called witness to
prove the The witness underwent asevere
crossexamination by the defendant above mentioned to
show that it usurious transaction; that the consi
deration consisted Of New Rochelle money which was
uncurrent at the time being at discount Of half per
cent. Verdict for plaintiff $751; Counsel for plaintiff,
Mr. Goddard.
jacob Morris u.s. Lepis Laacs This was an action to
damages for assault and battery The parties
Chatham street dealers. In the OF last sum-
the plaintiff purchased old coat shortly after the
purchase he met the defendant and told him OF the valH
able purchase he had made and offered to sell it to him
Upon which defendant desired him to make floor cloth
English -, for which defendant slapped him IN the
face For the assault the action was brought Verdict
for plaintiff SIS. For plaintiff, Mr.. Stoughton Tor de
fen ant, Mr.. Barber.
Morrsn and wife ps Vest and yVe-The jury in this
case could not agree, and were discharged;
action to $780, the value Of mare. The plain
tiff loaned the in question to the defendant in the
early part of June, to TO Throgs Neck in Westches-
county from the ill usage the mare received during
the journey, and careless manner in which she was
and has continued since. The defence was that
the given to another person. and not to plain
tiff Verdict for plaintiff SO. For plantif, Mr. Carpen
ter for defendant Mr. Lewis.
Before Judge Ingraham.
John Smell u.s. The Ssaman's Savings Bank-This was
action to alleged balance due on foot
Of the plaintiffs bank book The plaintiff commenced de-
posting his savings in the Seamana Bank some five or
six years ago. and running account was kept between
the parties Of the deposited and drawn out By
the books of the bank appeared that the plaintiff
paid the full amount Of his deposits except s0 but by
the plaintiffs book it appears that there balance OF
500 due to him. The question between the parties was
in which of the books the is The plaintiff alleges
that in April last they altered of the entries in his
book, by placing the figure l" before So making 1t
$780, from which it would appear that he dew out at the
time the entry was made $50; whereas he only drew
over the books it discovered that hc did receive
draft for $780, at the time although he was not debted
with it, After making this discovery they made the alte.
ration in his book, which he contests. The jury
found verdict for plaintiff for Sis. For plaintiff
Messrs. Thompson and WEIGH for defendant, Mr.
Bidwell
Henry M Herbert 70. Caspar Hc6man.--This was
action Of replevn brought to test the title OF the parties
to furniture in the possession OF the defendant
It appeared the plaintiff is manufacturer OF furniture
and lumber to the workshop OF the defendant
have II manufactured in bureaus, chairs sofas, Sc
the lumber accordingly worked up and plaintiff had
them polished. The defendant afterwards refused to
give the furniture up unless the plaintiff ave him 500
worth of lumber the plaintiff declined to comply, and
defendant removed the furniture to Brooklyn, and sold
it. Plaintiff issued writ OF replevn to retake IT, upon
which defe ndant executed bond in the value OF the
property in the plaintiff succeeded in establishing
his title. For the defence IL contended there was
no delivery and therefore the plaintiff had title II
The plaintiff the first defence by showing that the
furniture was delivered to his posher which was anta
mount delivery to himself the second part Of the
defence he denied but was proved on the part OF the
defence that part OF the lumber OF which the fur ure
was made did not belong to Herbert, but TO Hoffman.
Verdict for defendant. For plaintiff, Mr. Allen for
defendant, Mr.. Smith.
The court will set to-day and tomorrow 10 near law
arguments.