The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-11-26

- I>SA1b hI2fSaex0iAlNts ~ Nb~SA1A xN1l
sssxzsss.aAc casa Notwithstanding 70 pIoEn
etors andeditars of Rewspapesss and also to the
lie al profession, 10 now under the consideration
of the Judges Of the Superior Court; it was ar
gued at the sttings the first week Of the present
term.
The question involved is, whether the proprie
tor of newspaper, or the person who draws up
legal notice and sends it to the former for pub
LEGATION, is responsible for typographical errors
or, in other words, whether illegible, i'll writ
ten manuscript will excuse misprint.
The facts which gave rise TO the case occurred
as far back as 1885, from which will be seen
the necessity that exists of care and accuracy,
not only in those who take upon themselves TO
draw up legal papers, but in those who afterwards
put them into type. In 1885, Messrs William and
David Cargill, then residing in this city, entered
into, or, at least intended to enter into, limited
par,ncrship-Wiliam Cargill to be the special
partner, and to put in, as his share of the part
nersbip fund, $4,000; David c. Cargill to be the
general partner, and to have the Management Of
the concern.
he law Of limited partnership requires seve-
raj formsities to be gone through the partners,
previous to the partnership going into operation;
and The 9th section Of the act declares, that if
all these formalities are not complied with, the
persons interested in such partnership shall be
responsible for all the engagements thereof, as
general partners. One of the requirements ls,
that the partners shall publish the terms Of the
partnership when registered, for at least six
weeks, in two newspapers, to be designated
by the Clerk Of the county in which the part
nership shall DO registered, &c.
So tar the requirements of the statute were
complied with. The County Clerk designated
an evening journal one of the papers in which
the advertisement was 10 be published 1t was
accordingly sent to that paper for insertion, but
in setting il up, the printer made two errors--one
in the spelling Of Mr. Cargill's name, and the
other, which was the principal one, in making
the sum to be subscribed by the special partner,
FIVE thousand dollars instead Of two thousand
dollars. The partnership afterwards became ID.
solvent, and one of the creditors discovered the
last mentioned error, and brought an action
against William Cargill, as a general partner,
and the Court of Errors decided that he was q
general partner, within the meaning of the STA
tute, and, as such, adjudged him liable to the
partnership debts, and finally, he had to pay one
thousand dollars, the amount of the debt and
costs. Mr.. Carsill then turned round on the
newspaper publisher and brought an action
to re cover damages from him for a want of dill.
gence and skill as printer and publisher. The
action was tried about year ago in the Su
preme Court and resulted in verdict for the
defendent. The counsel for Mr.. Cargill, how.
ever, took exceptions at the trial, to the evidence
adduced by the publisher and to the Judges
charge, and the case was argued the week
before last.
On the part Of the plaintiff it was strenuously
argued that the newspaper proprietor, i'm
pliedly, at least, for valuable consideration
contracted to use due care and diligence in
printing and publishing the notice that il
any difficulty occurred in reading or de-
cyphering the manuscript, it was his duty
to send it to the person from whom he received
it, to have it explained or corrected; but in not
having done SO, he was guilty of wilful neglect
and inaccurcc y, which was breach of his con
tract On the other side, it was strongly urged
that Mr. Cargill was, to say the least of it, equal
guilty, in not having sent ii legible manuscript
that if persons do not choose to take ordinary
care in writing and drawing up their legal pa
pers, they must take the consequences, and thai
in the present case, the manuscript was such al
skill and diligence.
That there had been negligence and want of
care some where, is indisputable; but at whose
door this negligence is, and upon whom the
consequences of it shall fall, is the question
I, it upon the person sending the notice, or upor
the printer