The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-10-14
New York Superior Court.
Rafora a EMIL Ranch

Der. ls.-James Gordon Bennett, Plaintiff in Error.
Ssors the surerof cour upou csror to the
Marine Court Tho action was originally brought by the
defendant in error against the plaintiff in error before
Court to damages for alleged libel. said to
have been published in the New York Herald. The
after hearing the said issue argued by counsel both
Sides, the Justice gave judgment for the plaintiff who
ry. The defendant below then sued out certorari to
reverse the Judgment OF the Marine the follow
f-Because the fourth inuendo In the plaintiff deca-
ration void for want of introductory averment
that Louis Chamberlain was called and known by the
iI~Because the said declaration contained no aver
ment connecting the Mr. c." in the alleged Libel with
II-It was not averred in the said declaration that
was known to the public the plaintiff occupied the house
IV-The supposed causes of action were not erred
in the said declaration to have arisen happened within
the Jurisdiction Of the Marine Court
certain named in the plaintiffs declaration
Consequences Of the publication Of he alleged libel
yI-The Justice erred also in rejecting the testimony
ton when offered to be given in evidence by the defen
dant in mitigation Of damages
yi.The Justice erred in rejecting evidence Of the
plaintiffs general character offered by the defendant in
vThe Justice erred in refusing to charge the jury
of damages for the publication Of alleged libel
And for these the Judgment of the Marine Court
Benjamin Galbraith, for the plaintiff in error Henry
NJ Western, for defendant in error.
Before Judge Oakley.
Oct 13.-Peter N. Cdstiuionds WiilidM Mckinley
and ofhers-This was action Of trespass. From the
evidence it appeared that named Joseph Rodri-
Chant in wall street left the city suddenly on the 18th
ofJanusry last that the 5h two days before he left
he executed three bills Of sale Of his property consisting
household furniture, in consideration of $4,000 to the
plaintiff and put him into possession further appeared
that Rodriguez indebted to various persons and
amongst others to the defendant Mckinley in sum of
$780, and that in few days after Rodriguez had lef
him as an Ascending debtor lodged it with the Sheriff,
and leved on the goods and sold them Castellionas
Ss his s
alleged that Rodriguez was charged with having CON-
mied offence against the laws Of the United States
and prosecution had been instituted against him, from
which he fed that plaintiff had only arrived here in the
previous October without and that the sale to
Creditors Of The case Is to this
morning For plaintiff, Messrs Cutting and Purroy for
defendants, Messrs. Gerard and Blunt.
Before Judge Vanderpoel
John Rhidabock Us Jesse Rogers This was an action
pr SANDER. The parties were neighbour and dis.
te happened between them in which defendant called
the plaintiff thief and said he could prove it for that
he had stolen his the defendants fence The defendants
nat there wa. party fence between them and that the
plaintiff had torn il down, and that that was all he meant
to say and that the persons present in that
sense he therefore insisted that all he charged with
was being a trespasser which not actionsbe. and
called nonsuit The judge denied the nonsuit, and
allowed II 20 the Jury who found verdict in favor Of
plaintiff for $50. For plaintiff, MIR. r. g. Winslow for
defendant, Mr.. Ward.
Jacob Diefen5arker, Us Thos. d. Naifs-Action of re
pevn test the ownership Of the parties to Newfound
land dog From the testimony of the plaintiffs witnesses
il appeared that he purchased the dog May ls4S and
had him up to June, when he was stolen that during
the time he had him he taught him various branches Of
canine education, by which means he was very dooile
useful and companonable animal and that he answered
to the name Of Neptune that in some months after he
session; that he had both Neptune and the defen-
dant taken to the Tombs, but the Justice told him
the cav. hut advised the nlantIS to isus re-.
plevin For the defence three Witnesses proved that the
dog always belonged to the defendant and that he
in his possession in the month of May l9A5 at the very
time the plaintiffs witnesses proved that he In train
ing there also discrepancy between the wit
to the dogs manners and education. Sealed
verdict this morning