The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-10-29
Superior Court.
Before Judge Oakley.

Der 2s-Charies Lohman u.s. The Nesc York and Erie
Railroad Company This cause was resumed Yesterday
morning Mr. Marsh was recalled and examined BY Mr..
Cutting-Has made statement from the books Of the
number Of the shares issued from May ls4s to Dscsm
stoc under the resolutions Of the drecors the amount
Of issued for that period for the and debts Of
@ what was the amount Of the per cent bonds pay.
A. About $3.50 900 to $4,000
@ What was the amount of the per cent stock pay.
able in ls49
A About $500 900.
Q Did the Executive Committee issue stock. or the
officers of the Company issue 1t in of tho MI
nutss ofthe Board Of Directors In the month of
sry, when application was made to the officers Of the
Company TO issue stock, thers any effort made to
call the directors together
Q By Mr. Foot-How many instances there on
the paper meanng the statement above referred toy Of
stock having been issued to different persons
@ What was the price Of 8 per cent bonds previous
to ID January, ls46
Q What was their value after the meeting Of the
GARD OF Brokers on the 4th january
To Mr. Cutting-Wness after tina lat of January pur.
chased about two three hundred dollars worth Of the
bonds
The Resolution of the 5th of January 1896 approving
Of the officers issuing the converted stock then put
in for the defence subject to Mr. Cuttings exception
Directors the I'd of January but that business
done, but upon reading the minutes Of the meeting it
va: en- the minutes Of the last meeting read and that
dscu sson uron som. subject took place between the
members. This was to show that tho issuing of the
stock approved of until the second meeting Of
the Directors.
The cause then summed up and Judge Oakley
the whole subject, and concluded by telling the jury
that in his opinion in legal point of view, there was
difference between the converted stock which that
called equal to idated stock that the officers
justified IN issuing it, and that the company could not
afterwards repudate it II he wrong in that opin.
on he would be corrected He also told them that in
regard to the written agreement to return the bonds and
take back the stock the plaintiff could not now set 1t
up as he did not call at the ii 20 designated in it, He
next told them IN regard another ground upon which
the plaintiffs counsel commended he ought to recover,
which was that there was msappre hension on the
plaintiff mind, he agreed for consolidated stock, and
thought he got il until ne put into the market The
ue Of law upon this point that If the misspprshen
would not do that party should misapprehend
It. II the officers Of the company gave him that
and out s.
not then the Misrepresentation was mutual and the
contract void; and if they could gather from the
evidence that such was the ac they ought to and for
the plaintiff
The jury then retired and had not sgrsed up to the
time the adjourned. Sealed verdict this morning
Ohrer 3ieyne and John Burnside rs Ciaudius Dord =
This action of assumpst implied warranty
The plaintiffs are merchant; residing in New Orleans
and defendant merchant Of this city Engaged in
the French blanket trade In the fall Of ls45 tho plain
% purchased from defendant ~ bales Of blankets the
price Of which amounted 10 about $4,000. They allege
they bought by sample; and when the blankets came
to hand they turned out to be moth eaten. The plain
n s Ue cep hsy sno Ss
ton recover hack the sum Of $780, being the per
cenage the $4,000. hree four merchants engaged
ing by sample they proved that such the custom in
their respective houses and that they believed the Gus
ton of these witnesses the court adjourned.
For plaintiff Mr. Robert J. Dillon. For defendants,
Messri. J. p. Hall and Owen.
Before Judge Vanderpool
Kelly vs Ca,rou-This cause, which il an action for
SANDER has been adjourned to this morning.