The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-02-04
Court OF Common Pleas.

Fsp a. iron u.s. Butterfieid ct aIs.-This case was
resumed this morning After counsel concluded the sum
ming up. Judge lngraham charged the jury He said It
appeared to him the cause took up time than
necessary. The case involved but very simple quss-
ton and throw aside all such evidence and remarks Of
counsel did not bear it, their duty would be plain
defendants for sals which were destroyed BY the re
that happened in July last The destruction Of the goods
dispose Of there "a
there any obligation Independent Of that the
defendants to insure the geods jury satisfied
that there contract there not and the de-
PENDANTS were obliged to INSURE the plaintiff must
yer; il not, they must fail. His honor said there werc
Dy Tempest the broker, and the second by Bradbury,
the witness the first superseded by the second,
and the jury was to throw that Of the
far went to explain the agreement made betwse
Bradbury the clerk Of plaintiff and Fisher, Of the
defendants The agreement, as stated by Bradbury was
that the defendants to take the goods at six two
thirds per cent there denial Of this the part Of
defendants; the only difference between them is whsth-
er Bradbury at the time included the insurance in the
contract and whether the defendants agreed to insure
thoseermf. For explanation Of this they had right
contrast tho terms Of with the second agreement mado
BY Bradbury and Fisher. The Judge continued ut con-
cuded BY stating that there was no rule Of law or
tom to oolge commission merchant to insure; no was
Un vssc e 40 80 ~ 1c0n or special agree
4gnes Cochran vs. pincnt Lecompfe and Laurence Dn.
suThs was an action Of trespass, to recover dana.
ges for trespass alleged to be done to plaintiffs house
The plaintiff and her husband occupied the house No.
2ss Greenwich street. watch and jewelry store for
number Of years. Mr. Cochran died in ls4l and Mrs.
Cochran took lease of it, after his death, Of 81 years.
and continued to Carry the ewery and Matchmaking
business The defendants owned the adjoining lot and
decided to build and did commence building on II in
ls43 The injuries complained Of are frs that defend
ants did not give due notice to plaintiff Of the building
they about to erect secondly, that they werc
guilty Of gross negligence in constructing their house
and also, in excavating for foundation, they under
mined the plaintiffs house, damaged and cracked the
walls and threw off the weather boards in consequence
of which the rain entered and injured her furniture and
stock Of goods After the examination Of witness,
tho Court adjourned. For plaintiff, Mr. Jordan for de-
PENDANTS MIR. r. Wilson.
Before Judge Ulshoeffer.
Joseph Reilly vs. The jackson Marine Insurance Com
pany-This was an action on policy Of insurance.
effected by plaintiff at denendents Office the 18th Of
May ls44 the stock Of boots shoes tools fixtures
&C., contained in the three story brick house. known as
No 81 John street, for $500 The premises took fire
the morning of the lath of May and partially
consumed whereby the plaintiff alleges he sustained
loss Of $780, and furnished the preliminary proofs de-
PENDANTS, with notice claiming the amount OF damage
Tho defendants set Defence fraud in the prelim
nary proofs IN over vaung the goods The case stands
adjourned to this morning. For plaintiff, Mr.. Delavan
for defendants, Mr. De Forrest. ff 94
Walker e al Green ct aI.Verdict for plaintiffs val
ung the piano at $3.50.