The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-01-14
MONHY MARKET.

The stock market remains without any material alter
alton. Prices Auctuae from dsy to day a fraction u
Ss, 1885, fell CT at the nrst board to-day n per cent
Long Island q; Erie, IL Reading Railroad, 7 per cent
the quotations being ex.dvidend Ohio ss Farmers
Loan, and Norwich & Worcester, closed at yester-
days prices Harlem went up Il per cent and vicks.
burg u.
Al the second board U. 8. 6s SO declined X; Harlem
advanced y; Norwich Worcester, NJ and Erie u. The
transactions at both boards about the usual extent
The Reading Railroad Company have declared divi
depd Of ten FER cent, payable in stock
The Louisville Bank has declared dividend of 81 per
cent; Kentucky Bank, "a; Northern Bank of Kentucky
4; Trenton Railroad, !.
tn, following is the substance Of the charge Of his
Honor Judge Oakley in the recent important case in
whichths New York and Erie Railroad Company were
the DEFENDANTS from which it will appear that the cues
ton, to whether the olcsrs of tbs company had the
pcwor to issue stock in exchange for the bonds Of the
company, remains 10 be decided by the Court in Banc -
Judge OAKLEr--" This involves a great and seri
ous question, whether the stock issued to the plain
tiff by the treasurer and secretary was valid His
counsel insist that it was spurious and of n, Va
iidty, and there il much force in the Wow pI 81
eentad by them: have such Axed snd settled
opinion upon the question, te enable mo to
speak with condolences and ths to tho
company may be very serious, if the position of the
psinlH be susaised prefer for the present to assume
that the stock valid against the company Il il
unnporsn, in what shape this question is Pot here b..
by either party before the other judges If YOU can and
atveraict TOR the plaintiff upon other gounds it may
render the decision Of this very serious point
present trial, I instruct you that this stock is
not spurious You will then ascertain from the evil
derce, what was the contract and arrangement
between the plaintiff and the officers of the compa
ny. He insists that the agreement between thcm was
that in exchange for his bonds the Company agreed
TO give lin stock equal to consolidated and that
was tho understanding and arrange that this stock
shond be transferable the book OF transfers of con-
W fsrtoI nH ,,tsl
part OF the contract New, is there any evidence of
such agreement The paintr has proved that the
transfer clerk gave assurances that the stock should be
transferable on this transfer book No other officer of
the Company seems to have had any express agency in
or Ct the trsnsfe clerk to bind the defendants il il clear
tha his agreement would have Had no such effect be-
it s infsribls from al the circumstances that II
was fully understood by all the parties that the
Iears 10 me, taking all the evidence into censiaera
lion That such was the understanding until the MOI n
ing OF the third OF January, when the President
gave directions 10 allow the to be
uron the consolidated book But then arises this great
dnicuy in the plaintiffs Assuming tho evidence
TO be as he insists it would follow that the refusal of S
compsny to elbow the to be transferred upon the
coWsloaed book, a violation of the and
eptusd the plaintiff sue for damages But the plain.
ua mes not sued III the form Of action that the law pre-
ssbes Tor violation of the he has brought
sun which founded upon the position that the whole
Sostec was escioJsd and insssd Of claiming dam
ne iepudia'es tho whole agreement and demapds a re-
WIN OF fs sounds In order 10 sustain this suit violation
sumCIeDt-h0
uAt prove 10 your satisfaction that in making the ori
m agree msnt there was dec sptive and fraudulent in
eent oio that he contract when entered into was not
tsr orc on TIE part oil the defendants II ia NOT enough
thst ihete may nave been mistake or
on the part OF the plantifyou must be SATISFIED tbs
deception was practised him in the making of the
contract II insisted that the officers of The
oughtto have communicated the plaintiff THAR dat.ru,
nation not to asw the stock be tianserre5 on The
solicated book so ss to have given him the onportpnv
TO return the stock before two o'clock of the 3D.
until when he had reserved the right return the soL
and demand back his bonds and that the f
this important fact fraud upon him. But althouoh
the defendants may by their acts have exposed them
selves TO an action for damages yet matter of law
do not perceive that they thereby rescnded hs whole
agreement to have entitled the plaintiff to main
tam this suit The whole therefore results in this that
unless you can find TO your satisfaction that an inten
on to dsrsud the plaintiff existed the time the con-
tract was made, the plaintiff cannot recover"
The jury under this charge found verdict for the
defe ndsnts.
The question Of law whether the officers of the COM
pany had authority TO issue the stock will now be pre-
sen'ed to the court for ito decision.
The following statement of the receipts O tho South
carolina Railroad during the last six months sbow.
very gratifying increase OF business couparsd with ,bs
corresponding months in isa5 -
rrxtE ~