The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-12-03
Law Intelligence.


Law Intelligence.
CIRCUIT CouRr-Dsc. 2.-Before Judge Edmonds.--
John Brooks Jr Joseph Cook aud Cornelius Taaderb.
ps Joseph Laurence aad Daniel Trimbie.-This
action of troyer to recover the value Of eight cases
Of satnsts The plaintiffs are owners Of the
The defendants are commission and forwarding mer-
chants residing Ia this city In February, ls4s ingalls,
four boxes Of satinets for Tiffany, Ward & Co., Of
Baltimore, and marked each box on the outside.
Of vsrS. ssu o%
North Adams to Pittsh.la to.be sent from thence
to Bridgeport by railroad, and from Bridgeport they
rom tSi. city they ssrs to BE- sent Y 70 TsDy Ware
Co, Baltimore by railroad There were three other box
sus and Sse to Bridgeport and d.
rected to Tiffany, Ward Co., Baltimore On the arri-
ys of the good: Bridgeport they we're put On board
boss, on the same trip fourteen boxes Of goods be-
ny. Ward Co and to be forwarded by the defendants
The plaintiffs aegs that on the arrival Of the boat
has Sesn made de dsfsndant in this suit, and that he
claimed the whole of the boxes well those Of Ingalls,
Wells aud those Of Estus, those Of Brown Harrison
Co., and got them that the defendants afterwards
instead Of sending them railroad they marked
pat them with the goods Of Brown, Harrison Co on
Ward Co Baltimore. The schooner and cargo WAS
lost on the voyage Ingalls, Wells Afterwards brought
an action for negligence agsust the PLAINTIFF and reco
plaintiffs bring their actions against the defendants
and their Ward to recover over against them
When the PLAINTIFF had closed their evidences Mr. Lord
behalf the defendant, moved for non-suit against
Ward, the ground that he could not be guilty Of
principals u the convsyance Of goods from one place
another and acting under their control and direction
, A. s.nn
brought and judgment sbtained against them ss or
Jea,ors aad the rule Of law is that osnnot
maintain action against another At this point of the
argument the court adjourned For the plaintinsMr.
8. sherwood. For the observation-disclosures Lord and
OsConor.
jacobs Us. Hooper-Ths jury in this cause rendered
verdict for the plaintiff for $i90.
Charge of ReUoit.-Willam shadbourne. Thomas Par
ker, Lewis Colly and Duncan Campbell, mentioned In
yesterdays Herald this morning brought before
Commissioner Morton TOR examination, in tbs custody
OF one of thu Deputy Msrshas 1t appeared that on the
nth November last the prisoners of and refused
to work The Captain ordered them to appear before
the American Consul s 10 O'clock s6s next
that the brig uusesworthy and they would not
in her The Consul advised them to go back and
reported her unseaworthy they should be discharged
They came back to the brig and two New England Cap
If or sent to make tho survey They reported
TO the Consul that the brig seeworthy The prison
refused to to their duv stated they
British suhects and not bound to 60 in the vessel and
they accordingly left thst evening" taking their effects
with them After forty-eight hours had elapsed, the
in seme time after had them conveyed board and
vessel put to during the voyage they conducted
themselves well, and no complaint was made II also
that the two ttes who had originally shipped
In the vssse had left her and others taken In
at Turks Island These two persons were examined on
behalf Of the and swore that the brig wal
seaworthy. On the other side, two men who reside In
this city, and have followed tbs sea for considerable
ss .s
they would not like TO come In her from Turks Island
this port at this season Of the The Deputy Mar
shall who arrested the prisoners was also examined He
said he in the forecastle, that It wretched
place for sleep that the water coming through
the decks &c The prisoners we're held to bail IN $loo
each.
| COMMON PLEAS Dec 2-Befors Judge Ipgrsham-Two
causes were called in this Court and resulted In non
suits, after which the Court adjourned
| justice vs. Tuck9.-The jury handed up to the Court
scaled verdict this morning. finding for the plaintiff
| $3.50 damages and cents costs
b fore Judge DAILY Tucker Us. WeHerreH-Thi
cause was not concluded when the Court adjourned.
SieUart Daniel KeiiyThis was action to recover
$50 so commissions for the purchase Of house Thu
plaintiff s physician and the defendant keeps quo
store at the OF Bayard aud Mott streets ap
peared the parties friendly TERMS that plaintiff
In the habit of frequently calling at the defendant
the defendant ascsrtaned that house In Bayart
street owned by Mr. Burdett within one or two door
Of his store to be sod nnd the plaintiff alleges
insy th. plaintiff wsissd on Mr. Weeks II. agent
Mr. Burdstt and after several meetings succsedsd Ii
purchasing the house for $62so The defendant va
afterwards called upon to pay the commission, but
fused The defendant set up defen that he
employed the plaintiff; that he commenced the treat,
| ntmSelf Win MT. burQetL ABOUT Two years Ootor
| the purchase was made that Mr.. Burdstt from
that time to q short time before the transaction
closed would not take less than $4,000 for the
| which the defendant was unwilling to give That pend
ing the negotiation the plaintiff habit Of vsit
ing at defendants store and in that way he knew tn
defendants anxiety to have the house, and called upo
Mr. Weeks MIR Burdett's agent, the subj .ct, with
out the knowledge direction OF the defend ,pt tha
the transaction finally closed bstweed Mr. Burdet
and the defendant without the inter- Of any ohs
person. and the only recognition which the dsfsndan
ever made In regard to plaintiffs share In the purchss
was that 10 conversation between defendant and Bur
dett. or Weeks one Of them, said that q which b
had then named offered for the house. the defend
ant replied that offered for himself by the plain
| tn II was further alleged the part Of the defend
ant. that shortly after the purchase completed
the plaintiff In defendants store and In the presenc
OF third person. said to defendant the least you ough
to do is to give me coat" The DEFENDANT replied
F" never employed you promised you any thing
From this 1t argued that the plaintiff
ployed by defendant and that " he rendered any
vice, he expected to be paid, and 1t only
sfter thought to bring the present acto Judge smt
charged the jury that they believed the nterereno
OF the plaintiff proceeded from friendly motives In to
commencement, he would not be entitled to a v~rdic'
but II from the evidence, they could to the con
clusion that he employed by defendant, and that
his exertions the purchase money was reduced Ieoi
So 900 to $S350 he would be entitled to their verdict
They should however take into consideration that On
purchase was closed bstween the principals themselves
rhs rettvSd a a ltat0H, fen1wi