New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-12-23
Inv of Owner md Factor.


In our absence Mt Philadelphia on Monday,
Card from Mr.. Henry L. Davies in reference to our
article of that morning was inserted IN yesterdays
paper less conspicuously than We could have
wished We therefore take the first opportunity
to call public attention thereto and request every
reader interested in trade to give it careful peru
sal And although Mr.. d. favors us with his opin.
ion that all newspaper comments on such matters
are impairment and necessarily Intellectual We are
impclled to speak farther on the subject We beg
leave to assure Mr. D. that his article is no more
than that OF Monday, inadvertently admitted
bu, is written by the responsible Editor OF The
Tribune, and that no human being has suggested
or solicited one word OF it,
That the public have no interest in this matter
apart from the principle OF law involved aud the
general consequences to flow from tho settlement
of that principle, is OF course understood That The
verdict Of the Jury in this case WAS "a Just and
honest verdict according TO the law as laid down
from the Bench is point quite unnecessarily rails.
ed by Mr. Davies. Our article had implied all this
We arc quite willing that all the facts in the case
shall be taken 50 ia! as they affect the matter in
controversy to Re just as he states though we see
them differently for the only matter in which we
are concerned is the exposition, or as il seems TO
us the fragrant subyersion OF the Law by cur Su
perior and Supreme Courts And thai, there may
be no cavil about the legal question a, issue We
will take It rs stated by Mr. Davies himself, viz
The Court submitted 10 the Jury the question
Whether not, 5, the tune The advances 10 Colgate
were made BY the defcndsn; Stevens he knew that the
property the plsnua 3 and eaarsea he ry ia,
&c kso The tHlc re sGraaetd ae GcRey Ccyas
nat AsF.sr 81 L., d,
oRls to2 for tAe rgcgeg dirnsce nAics reg; to The
ratsHss Or MS aeg@tca for ne" Reses:
jus, look 3, this doctrine in the light OF Equity
and Common Sense. Colgate, the broker and gen
cral asen, OF Wilson n Co. fully empowered to sell
deliver and receive paymcn; in their behalf, icliv
crs TO Stevens. commission merchant 10, OF
feathers Tor sale worth - eo and obtained thereon
advances orpaymcnts from time 10 time, amounting.
to SS,l5O he says he applied this money to pay
Wilson y Co.'S debts but suppose he didat or did
50 only in part as Mr.. Davies and the Court hold.
how could SicrcsS help that VIVA, control could
he possibly exercise over the disposition OF this
money by Colgate, who was never his agent no.,
trusted by him in any way, but the-a agent Of vii
son Co, entrusted with their property 10 sell
where and when he should deem cxped;ent 50 as 70
raise money to meet their obligations Suppose
he had sold the feathers outright to stevens taken
payment in full, and applied TO the satisfaction OF
his own debts instead o; Wilson K Cos-could
Stevens have prevented that nl;sappIcst;op
Could lie have Justly been held accountable tor it in
any Way Yet here ccus,s do hold hin. re.
sponsihle for that alleged tand denied nisapp!ica
ton OF the funds q Wilson X Co, We have known
many sasrant abuses Of Legal Power; but hardly
another 50 gross as this
As to the consequences Of such adju,iicaton,
there cannot be two opinions anlons dlsinteres,ed
men conversant with the course OF Trade. Property
to the value OF millions on millions is CONSTANTLY
coming TO this CRY to BE- Sold consigned to some
asens or correspondent OF the owners, who very
frequently 'urns over for sale to some commission
msESnahs or broker who has greater facilities for
selling than his ewn and obtains advances on it to
meet the maturing liabilities of his principal lin