The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-11-20
Law Iutelllgenee.


Justices HurIbut MoCoun and Msson-Aftsr the srgu
msnt Of No 10 concluded the case OF the People
an Indictment found by the grand jury Of westchsster
county against the defendant tor perjury Alleged 70 De
COMMITTEES By him. in an AFFIDAVIT made N c SSa, The
argued by Mr. Bourmsn for the defendant ana
Sy the Discretionary, Of Westminster county, anu
SUPERIOR CouRr-In Chambers, Nov l9-Before Chief
Justice Oakley HaSeas Corpus Case-Mr Joachims.
son moved for the discharge Of Thomas Morrit Who 1t
appeared, was detained commitment as witness In
criminal case His honor held the commitment to be
void its face 1t not having set forth all the facts re-
qured by the statute to authorize the detention OF the
prisoner. Discharge ordered.
MARINE CoURr-Nov 10 Before Judge Waterman.
-Da"rst Mehan Us. Samuel Price.-This an action
81 trespass g"are ctausum fregit brought by Mehan,
the tenant against Price, the landlord for breaking
down the door and part Of occupied by Mehan.
room in question: with several Others was rented by the
plaintiff Of the wife Of the defendsnts and although
still the possession sufficient maintain the action
The defendsn, endeavored to show that the was
never rented by the defendant to the plaintiff and II it
dant had appropriated it. The Judge charged the jury
who retired, and after hours Absence rendered
verdict for the plaintiff H. II Byrne for plaintiff: MIR
Bronson, for defendant.
CouRr OF AfpEALs-Nov. l9-The court met at ten
aud reserved taken up and in part argued BY
Mr.. Lord, when the court adjourned.
COMMON PLAAs-Nov. l9--Before Judge UlshoeRsr
G;enfn and Lockwood u.s. Michael Isaaessn This was
action 81 050 including interest being the
loss 200 shares of the Norwich and Worcester rail
road stock The plaintiffs alleged that the oath of
November le46 the defendant gave them verbal order
to 900 shares Of the above mentioned stock at
SIX to o. but not to exceed this limit The same day
the defendant went to Boston, and on the 25th the
stock purchased The plaintiffs alleged that they
notified the defendant by letter to Boston, that they had
purchased That after his return, they again notified
him, and that he sent them word to hold to It, In
few days after, the steamboat Atlantic which belong
was wrecked and in consequences the stock went down
in the Market and finally the defendant refused to take
bsr the plaintiffs again served written notice on de-
to accept and pay for the or else they
defendant not having replied to the notice the stock
accordingly sold at loss Of about $50 for which
sum and the interest the suit s brought There arc
poy plaintiffs brokers agents; that 1t private
bargain between them and the plaintiffs bad not the
the statute from recovering The amount secondTSs
statute Of frauds, which declares that all contracts
where the consideration s $50 and upwards be In
writing and that the contract In this CASE being in
writing is contrary to the statute and Of null
and void Third-Assuming the plaintiffs to be the
agents Of the DEFENDANT they the limits of their
authority defendant having restricted them to SIN
share and they having some of tha shares as
The JUDGE in charging the jury said that It seemed
these parties had dealings with each other prior to No.
vember, 1916; that the gath Of that month there
open contract between them; that plaintiffs
to purchase stock for defendant that the 26th the
Worcester Railroad stock and made advances to the
amount Of 800 thereon; that after having laid out
it to be sold by MIR. Blocker, and after deduct.
ing the charges for commissions, interest and
for p'1 which sn: suit is bought The psns now
insist that you gentlemen are to render verdict In
their favor that amount The first suggestion made
this transaction not brokerage concern; and to
sustain this proposition the statute has read you
another the seller has not the stock on hand at the
time the law will not sustain the bargain and II you
bring your minds conclusion That this was
q b0-
tween the partes that they only agreed to sell to the
WY linen .nets no Proof tnss tney naG
all bargain Of that kind void under the statute
and you need not further the would be
titled to your verdict; but to the conclusion
the plaintiffs employed by the defendant his
agents purchase the stock then your verdict should
also set defence that statute declares that all
contracts where the consideration $50 and over
plaintiff brings his action It his duty to make out his
case by legal evidenoe and If he DO not he must fail
I'm ms sna as nsy s1 t
question for you to determine, In this is whether
they did not You have hoard the Witness who tsst
ned hsre before you, that defendant read to plaintiffs
from book, memorandum, made by himself, showing
that he directed them purchase 200 shares of
plsntin, there be doubt If you satisfied
that fact that they acted IN the transaction as his
you satisfied the fret point the defendant should
have your verdict The next poiat is, did they, the
plaintiffs conform to the directions Of the defendant
The law requires that they should strictly conform, and
keep within the limits of their instructions. II the
plaintiffs instructed not to beyond SIN and they
So the their and they keep 1t
In this branch Of the Defence the great point before
is whether the evidence limited them to 57X had
they discretion to 90 to 5s II we were to speculate ON
this matter, might readily come to the conclusion
that party might understand the instructions to be
57h, and the other to be 90. We know that In loose
conversations, where parties are conversing about
figures closely connected b7H and S. they might
misundsrstand each other and that is the most cha
rtable conclusion to put it, but 1t is only from the
evidence you must decide whether they complied with
loss Sealed verdict tomorrow Chi: morninS) For
plaintiffs Wigbtman Clarke for defendant, Mr.. J. M
| Smith.
CouRr OF GENERAL SESSIONS, Nov l9-Before Recor
der Scott, and Aldermen Smith AMI Messeros Plea of
| Gui!y-William Nc Wiiams indicted for grand lar.
ceny, in having been concerned with James McWI-
ams, in stealing SS4 in gold coin and silves watch
from James Drisco being arraigned at the opening
of the court this morning. withdrew his former plea
not guilty and entered plea of guilty; whereupon the
court sentenced him TO be Imprisoned in the state
prison for the term Of two years and i've months
placed al the bar for trial. on an indictment for grand
larceny in having stolen quantity Of iron worth $685.
belonging to Messrs sherman Morris Inc evidence
the charge In The the jury acquitted tho
| cused .o.
| Arrested on Bench Warrant Joseph O'Connor was
| arrested to-day, and brought into court by ofcer
Bloom bench warrant issued BY the Court Of se:-
ward Lyons for WATCH which he falsely represented
to be gold The accused was held to bail in the sum Of
$25, to answer at the next term Of the court.
Trial for Robbery in the First Degree-George Web.
stsr, Thomas white and William Wallace, were then
called trial indictment for robbery in the first
degree in having the night of the 9th Of November
knocked down John Nelson and robbed him Of sal
| in gold and silver coin.
JOHN NELSON, on being examined, deposed as follows
am native Of Finland, and sailor; the night In
question, was in company with White and two other
mem while walking together, White put his hand into
one OF my pockets; asked him what ne was about when
he replied that he was COED friend Of mine; then t.
tempted to run away, when White knocked me down
| and tore out my pocket containing the money
Officer LANcDoN examined-I arrested White at No.
Ill Roosevelt street, the night the robbery COM
mi ted and found the pocket, containing portion OF
the stolen money, in his possession
Officer WITs exsmined-Wnile on duty on the night
Of the 9th instant requested to keep eye upon
some who suspected Of an intention to rob
sailor accordingly went to bar room In Roosevelt
pany wi Nelson drove them away, but in the course