The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-02-13

rendered
est Of concerned that should be promptly sold to save
il from greater damage, and that landing would DO
attended with great expense would be proper to COM
ply with the customs Of the port OF Rio and sen
II that such sale should take place under the
advice and supervision of the resident agent (Wm =.
Of sales read and appeared that the brokers, msr
chants and agents. for the New York and other insur-
ss tsS s.is
nary proofsp duly presented and the claim for loss
was made the 18th Of February, 1910. Hiram Ketch
um Esq, for the insurers, here arose, and said an
have say that the proof Of interest in John Gar
ca is not sufficient and shall not now argue the qaes-
ed policythat tie invoice proved that the shipment
was for account Of Mr. Garcia, who was the owner and
S tina, ,Ss s aS Of
that the law authorities were SO overwhelming upon
these two points as to render the objections Of the in
surers too trivial for consideration. Judge Oakley d.
rected that the should proceed Mr. Purroy then
read the usual evidence chief to the jury to sustain
that before the vessel was cred she was specially
examined and found to be frsclass brig Of $50 TOMS
three old wa; then riding At an nS with nes
ssaworthy for the voyage to Havana with the cargo In
evidence the testimony of the captain and Of the owner
ION board as passengsr taken BY commission at Bay.
objected to by Robert Emmett ESQ., for defendants It
appears that the commission was issued in the ordinary
inc ana a d
y asked and answered by the witnesses and that they
had signed the original record OF the testimony,
az taken by the French Judges, but that these
original signatures were not returned TO New York
Mr. Purroy urged that the commission bore the original
and seals Of the French Courts who took the
testimony and the certificates and seals Of the American
Consuls and he ably argued and explained that such
New York commission, under the French law. Judge
Oakley here intimated that, as the plaintiff had sum
cienty established his claim was for the time being
entirely unnecessary read this testimony and he
dered that the commissions be, for the present. with
drawn. Some learned and amusing sparrng here took
q autterng dove COTE" and Mr.. Ketchum opened for
the defence MIR Cutting having stated that he claimed
sr loss na nes and
| condly that cargo Of jerk beef was memorandum
article "-therefore free from average unless gene
rail-" Mr. Emmett then read survey, TO show that the
captain required cable anchor and boat at Rio stating
that these articles were necessary" and that they
were lost in June, before he left Monsevideo. Then
there debate about certificates from Monte
video, showing that Notwithstanding such loss tae
boat The insurers here called Mr Leland to the stand
upon the jerk beef point, and his testimony elected
mnoh debate as il appeared that he had never seen
cargo Of beef discharged although he had seen tho ar
Gle before and at the loading and Mr. Ketchum desired
that the witness might testify to the condition Of car
suggested that he might give his opinion whether,
when good cargo Of beef shipped In sound state,
nal psrs the Tho
tits counsel admitted the fairness Of the question MT
Ketchum objected and the Court adjourned until 10
John p Garcia vs. ths Jaekson Marine Innsranee Co..
This i suit brought 70 recover go upon policy 81
Chartered In 1889 trade between Havsna Buenos Az
Jackson Marin. u Company and the York
Insurance Company Of this city. While on her voyage
70 b
part taken into Montevdso In damaged condition
where sold The chief point at issue seems to be
the difficulty in dsp0sing Of or arriving at the averages
due from each of these insurance companies. The in
tersst manifested BY the parties and the mas.
of extending this trial through two or three days.
Ma 5 Before Judge vandsrpoeL
F.D. a-Fts"e. T'yon vs. Ed.Sard ~ Tyon]sI .hi:
morning. Sealed verdict tomorrow.
Circuit Court,
Before Judge Edmonds
Fer. l2.--Sarah and Caroline Knoglss W. Peter and
Margaret Pollion.-This was an action on promis-
sorry note for $500 The action Ito WAS brought ~
ing to the plaintiffs statement, il appeared that in
September, ls42, large sale Of cocoa was sdver.
article, applied 70 Joseph Knowles, the brother Of
plaintiffs, whom he knew to have some money to
invest and Represented to him that opportunity to
make good speculation about Offering, and urged
him to join in becoming purchaser at said sale the said
the pu1chs.s Which s as YVES 70
ton, advanced $500, and the COCOA was purchased.
Wishing to have the entire control Of the cocoa. II
then agreed thai Knowles should receive back the $500
ADVANCED
both sums making together $3.50 for which Poion was
gi his promssoy note In six months to be
endorsed by his mother, together with mortgage on
was to become entitled on the death Of his mother.
When the note became due IL was not taken up but
the same ensorssr, taken for the $500 When the
newed note became due II was not taken up and the
The defence set up BY Peter roOn was usury and
for the defendant Margaret was contended that she
wes discharged enaorser the first note, by the &C
aryou If n0f hav n
ment without any consideration) for an antecedent
debt Mr. Pollion was placed the stand on the part
of his mohov He proved that in October l843, large
sale Of cocoa advertised by De Forest and Sons that
he wished become purchaser at the sae he applied
loan Of $500 and that he would give him his note for
Sl7oO pay able In May following together with mort
rage q collateral security Rnsws. ss,;'sd and made
when il came to maturity Poon was unable to take 1t
up, and shortly affair new agreement was entered into
NOT: for $3.50 In twelve months
interest and knowles not to call II in for three
years Upon this state of facts defendants counsel in
sisted that $3.50 having paid interest the note
from October to May void under the usury laws
and also vated the renewal as against Peter r0iilon
precedent debt Observation-Disclosures
The Judge said the only point they had to consider
was the question OF usury, the other point namely
that set up for Mrs Pollon out Of the CASE she
dorsed the note without knowing thai he discharged
from the first note and 1t testified to by Mr. Jones
that in 1914 she promised TO pay he said that usury was
very ungracous defence, and 1t was the duty OF
jury to that usury was clearly established Tneo
were two witnesses examined who to different
state Of facts The Judge commented on the testimony
calling the attention OF the jury TO the points on which
thew differed and left it TO them TO say whether the
charge of usury was made not lie also told the
Jury that they TO take notice OF the testimony
of Peter Poon, except that part which related TO bis
mother Verdict for the plaintiffs Si73s
Kemaell 10. McKe.-Tbe jury in thisEcsuse remained
out ali night but could not agreethey were discharged
this morning.
Court Calendnr--This Day.
COMMON PLrAs.-Part L--Nos 81, "a 2as, 90, IS, 80
49, a. g. S. l0s 81, l0a, a. 81. Part 2,xNos. lis t.
LAT, ..
SUPERIOR CouRr-Numbers.-eo. l05, II, %, il, 65
g. &c. i03 g. Ca "a lol ILL., liz, ia, Ia, no. 100
I24, l25, l26, I27, l2s 81.
On the morning Of the ID inst, in quarrel be