New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-01-26


surgMoR CouRr-Before Chief Justice Jones and
judges Oakley and Vsnderpool--D c i On s-LoEisa
Rg0ld Solomon Heipe-Mrs. X. brought action for
libel on the ground that Mr. II in pleading 70 8 suit
atve individual stated that he boarded at house
OF i'll fame in Westinghouse and mentioned the No. OF
Mrs. RS house although he did not mention her
In the action for the libel she obtained verdict in her
favor and motion is made for trial on the ground
that the paper privileged being Judicial document
The Court held that person has no right 10 Islander
third party judciay otherwise, and is only justified
In speaking Of third parties In his pleadnss where 10
absolutely important TO the case Motion for new trial
denied.
Mary Aaa Rarrea ecrir, &c. vs.. Edgar Harrdt This
was an action on a bond the defence 10 which was
usury After argument the Court held that the defence
under the proofs not sufcien. be admitted and
gave judgment for plaintiff Motion is made for leave
TO amend the plea In the argument was shown that
the word uncoDscionable" applied by the Supreme
Court in case TO the defence OF usury This Court in
deciding the present motion, stated that the peadngs
not defective through error-whst was intended
expressed. Although we do no, mean to assert
said the Court 4" that the defence OF usury is uncon
sconablo yet is OF those deiences which we will
not particularly encourage. We will not step out Of
the way to let IA party claiming as this motion does
Motion denied.
Jacob LIME & Co. vs. Liadslsy & M1ray-Action a
note for $500 which stated that 200 shares of
L. :. Fire Insurance Co stock had been left with plain
tits security, with power to sell on default OF pay
ment without notice, &c. The defence is that Messrs
Little Co neglected TO sell the stock they agreed TO
do both before the note was given and aerward, and
catcd and a large loss accrued Verdict was given for
plaintiff and motion is made for new trial The Court
In lie decision stated that notice could be taken OF
the agreement to cell before the giving OF the note as
all such agreements merged in the note-nor can
the after agreement be allowed seto against the
note II Mr. NJ has sustained injury by the neglect Of
Messrs l.. e. Co his remedy is in special suit Mo
ton for trial denied.
J. d. Bradne, ais. hin. Jones. sheriff, q dis.-ln
lsi5 Messrs Bradner & Co received order from Ri
ley Walker Milton, Florida. for quantity oil goods.
on the 18th Sept they sent III bales and boxes contain
ing portion of the goods amounting to $1,000 ON board
the brig Republican. for that place, directed to H. w
leaving about $500 Of the order still uncompeted. On
the l9th Mr. Palmer of this city 10 whom X. q w were
indebted attached the goods under the non resident
debtor law on board the Republican claiming that title
had passed from Bradner & Co and conferred IN Riley
& Walker Messrs b. Co. repeyined. and verdict was
gvsn subject the opinion of the Court receipt had
been merely given the for the goods, but no
bill of ladne signed and communication had been
made 10 II & w that the goods were ON board. The
Court does consider that the goods had passed from
the possession OF b. & Co. Judgment for plsintif
Judge VandeTpoe gave separate opinion, coincd-
ing with the decision, and giving precedent &C IN It's
support
Bokeo VS. Nash.-Judgment affirmed.
Gilbert vs.. Loe-Judgment reversed.
Daniel ~. 7ownsend vs.. Thos Gdrdin1.--Mouon Tor
trial denied
Valentine Mogvs Gauia and HoRp0 MoR-Mo,ion
for trial denied.
Pieries vs. Lyman-Moton TO act aside report denied.
There were also some decisions on appeals ilom
Chambers, sc.