The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-06-14
Law Intelllxcnce.

SUPERIOR CouKT-Befors Judge Oakley Charles Oak.
med Saturday, after which Judge Oakley charged
the jury he prefaced his charge by stating to the jury
that counsel were much in the habit of introducing
extraneous matter into their addresses to uries pat
cularly when the cause was of great magnitude and
interest for the purpose Of exciting the sympathies and
feelings Of jurors in favor of their clients To be
it the privilege of counsel to do 50, but it was
his duty as the presiding judge to caution them
against being led away by the introduction OF all
they, the jury, had nothing to do with the ST.
tuation Of the respective parties with the poverty OF
the the riches and spendor Of the other court
Of justice perhaps the only place where the rich
and the poor met upon equal terms The law made
for equal protection of both and knows dstnc
ton between them. He would, therefore, beseech them
to divest themselves Of oil impressions made their
minds by the speeches of the counsel either side 1t
their duty and to the faithful performance of that
duty they were sworn) to decide this cause ac-
cording to the evidence and the law applicable
court Gentlemen, | thought it right to make these
remarks to you. in order to draw your attention
from all the extrnsic matter that has been mixed up
with this for after all the only question you have
to decide is, MIR Baker partner in the house of
John Young & Co.? Gentlemen the under
these circumstances. John Young Was a commission
merchant in the island of Cuba; the plaintiff was mer
chant in this city, and made certain consignments
Young the only persons known ut the time to be
cerned in the house in Trinidad Young and Ken
nedy and out Of these consgnments the claim the
validity II which you called upon to decide 1t
has appeared in evidence before you that Young ale
and that certain proceedings took place in the Court
of Bankruptcy Trinidad, court instituted BY the
Of Cuba the result Of which that he was declared
baukrupt he afterwards to this city and plaintiff
thought proper to commence suit against both but
process was only served ON Young; the plaintiff claimed
very large sum OF money to be due to him. reco-
vered judgment for the full he claimed he AZ
terwards discovered that defendant owned property In
this state, and issued an attachment against III the
bond now in suit then given to enable Baker to get
back the property and to put the whole matter In train
to be tgated by which, you will observe that Rowland
Arpinwal are but nominal defendants while Baker is
the real defendant In the case they to be repre-
sent him. and will DO responsible to the plaintiff you
shall render verdict in hs favor but that responsible
ty rests on themselves and ought affect your de-
cison IN this matter As have already said it is con-
coded on all hands that the point at issue turns
fact aud that this Baker at the time of those
oonsignments, Ipartner in the house OF Young &Co
eentlemen, party who rests his partnership
bound TO make out to your full and entire satsfac
ton; there two three ways of making IL ont or
proving the existence Of partnership First IL deed
has been entered into aud executed between the parties
the production and proof of such deed will be evidence
OF the existence Of partnerships may be made out
by showing that has suffered his reputation to 90
before the public the strength Of which the public are
led TO deal with and give credit the firm; II he does
that then he renders himself liable to the creditors of
tho frm There Is another kind Of partnership which
might exist between Individuals there might secret
agreement between them, hidden from all but them
selves Now, with respect to those secret
there are some facts which If they appear concu
sve II it turns out that the party not known to be
partner has received portion Of the profits of the
general business OF the rm Of any part the BUSH
ness aud appropates IL t. his own use instead of an
plying it to the funds that ought to 90 in PAYMENT of the
creditors, 1t would be evidence of secret partnership
and our law would hold the party table, and the SAME
principle Is applicable In Cuba these secret partner
ships where there Is deed If 1t be discovered the law
viii charge the party in the way as II the partner
ship had been entered into to the of that
place This being the state Of the law the question in
the case iswas Baker secretly interested In the bust
ness with John Young And as have before told YOU
Is the business OF the plaintiff to make this fact to
sonablc doubt your minds that he was he entitled
to the that doubt and ought to have your