The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-02-12
Superior Court,


Fee, ll-Wm Argau vs VIM. c: Bryant This was an
action on the case to recover damages for alleged ne
tfand David Argall entered into special partner
two years the plaintiff to be the special partner,
ship was the Evening Post. with orders publish
1t once week for alx weeks In putting 1t up the com
postor made the plaintiffs subscription to the partnership
ating limited partnership this bundeP vitiaed the
ceedngs and made plaintiff general partner nste ad Of
special one subjecting him to liability for all the
partnership debts In 1919 action brought against
MIR. Argall, and finally judgment covered against
another judgment recovered and the present action
brought against Mr. Bryant with view to make him
sponsble Tor ell the damages and less that the plaintiff
has may hereafter susein The defendant rested his
defence upon two grounds 6rs wa, insisted that the
statute OF limitations began to from the time the adver
plaintiff himself chargable with negligence mas
much Immediately after the publication he must
dissolved the partnership and avoided all the loss and
trouble that has ensued and also that the manuscript
misled by it, To the first Defence the plaintiffs
counsel replied that the injury was consequential that
therefore that the did not begin until
judgment rendered against plaintiff. To the other
defence was replied that Mr. Bryant was bound to
and not having done so, he was guilty OF negligence,
end therefore bound to respond in damages Upon the
first question: that is the statute Of limitations the Judge
gave opinion but reserved for the consideration Of
the court in banco Upon the other question: which
the only question of fact the CASE he tod them that
they to decide from the evidence whether the de
PENDANT guilty Of negligence in not sending proof
sheet to the plaintiff mis- attorney In deciding that
question they should take into consideration the
IN which the manuscript was wrtten-whether it was
legibly written, obscure that a printer might DO
misled by its obscury The next question they were
to consider, whether the plaintiff himself had used
due diligence in not recttylng the error in due time
He illustrated this proposition by saying that if person
was driving urousIy aud recklsssly through the
streets, and had run over passenger, by which such
passenger might be severely injured, if the passenger
could have saved himself by getting Of the way but
did not do it, he could not afterwards recover damages
against the driver.
The jury retired and in few minutes returned with
verdict for the defendant We understand the verdict
based the fact that the plaintiff guilty of
gligence in not rectfyng the when he might have
done So. For plaintiff, Mr.. Anthem; for defendant, Mr.
sedgwick
Mary A ,Bragau u.s. VIM H. Tavlor-This was an action
on promissory note for $780, made by the defendant
payable to Park Benjamin or order After The proof OF
handwriting made, defendants counsel asked tor
nonsut the ground that after the note was made and
left the hands of defendant it altered the words in
terest per cent" being afterwards written in blue
ink the body Of the note being written in black ink For
plaintiff, Messrs Thomas Colt for defendant, Mr..
Stoughton.