The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-06-20


SUPERIOR COURT, June l9.-Before Judge Oakley
Thomas Hughes Us. Captain Woisey-This was an ac-
ton to recover damages for assault and battery and
false imprisonment The plaintiff resides at Boston and
the defendant is Captain of the steamboat Narraganset
He is. however, but the nominal defendant-the New
h ass .ns s he
boat Narragansstt then plying between this city and
Stonngton and they agreed to take persons on commu
table tickets to Stoningon for which 81 to lie paid
from thence the passengers to to Providence
from the latter place they to be carried to Boston
About this time the plaintiff entered into partnership
with Mr. Perrot in tho business of carrying money
packages between this city and Boston In January
lS44he came to town and procured ticket Mt thecompa
nys Office which to frank him to Boston for one
year, for which he paid 500 On the nth February
1874 after having gone several trips he presented him
self at the boat and received but she had got
about 10 miles from the city, about O'Clock in the a
ternoon plaintiff went to the Office with his ticket az
usual to show it to the captain The latter then told
him he should pay S. Hughes replied, have got my
ticket and here iy The defendant then replied that
he must pay, 60 shore. The plaintiff refused and
insisted his right but the defendant peremptory
in his demaud called his and six Of the crew,
dered them to, lower of the boats, and put Mr..
Hughes shore. Plaintiff was then put into the
boat, and rowed towards the Long Island shore.
and landed rock alleged by his counsel that
the rock at distance from the main land and
his client had to wade to the shore but it afterwards
turned out that he walked dry shod from the rock to
house. about half mile distant from It, procured
carriage, and reached New FORK the same night.
The defence that the plaintiff obtained the ticket
by fraud and Misrepresentation The Secretary of the
company Mr. Lockwood proved that the plaintiff called
at the company once, ne wanted TICKET lot
year. Lockwood explained to him that the tickets
emily intended to be given to mercantile firms that
would be given to persons carrying packages sc
and that the price Of S75 and a5 for partner
meals Sc to be paid extra The plaintiff replied that
he the ticket before and knew all about it. He then
paid ticket got it, and it not until some
time after that that he was the habit
of carrying packages 1t therefore, insisted
were justified in putting him on shore To this the
plaintiff replied that he put on shore in an improper
MANNER and secondly that he did not obtain the ticket
frauduleny These were the two issues to be passed
upon the jury The Judge left to the jury to say
upon the evidence, whether the plaintiff put on
shore improperly not it did not appear that he su
fer ID much inconvenence If they thought he was lille
galy put shore then they ought to find verdict fol
him. II not they ought to find upon that issue for the
defendant Upon the second issue, If they believed
dence Of Lockwood they ought to find for the defendant
The jury rendered verdict for the defendant. Fol
plaintiff, Messrs, Gerard and Plat For defendant
Messrs J. p Hale and Everts.
action for goods sold and delivered In May 1896 tn,
plaintiff had wagon at the livery stables Of Mr. Duff
Du to sell It, According to the statement Of Mr. Dui
the defendant called at his stables to purchase pair
horses Duff then mentioned to him that he had Wagon
for sae the defendant looked at 1t and said 1t wout
suit him. and asked the price of it, Duff replied $780, tn
defendant offered $40; Duff said he could not take
until he consulted plaintiff he afterwards saw plaintiff
who gave him directions TO take the $751; the next tim
defendant came to the stables Duff told him that plain
tiff had agreed to take the S75 and the defendant
to give it, he afterwards came to look at the Wagon
missed the pole and said he would take 1t until tn
pole was put to IT. the pole afterwards procured
attacncd wagon; the DEFENDANT saw IL sad
all right and that he would send for it, he did
take IT, however and they were driven to bring their
| ton.
Judge lngs, the defendants counsel said, that MI
DUH was under Misrepresentation about this mat
| ter; the real defence was, that such contrac
as that stated by him entered into betwee
fer himself and defendant but there pre-
sent at the conversations that passed between then
they could not rebut his evidence lie thought, how
ever there nothing to go to the jury and he wou
move for nonsuit, on the ground that there
actual delivery. The agreement should he reduced Il
writing or earnest paid the chattel absolutely deli
vered into the possession Of the vendee to take
out Of the statute Of frauds. He commended, that
neither OF these requisites complied with, Their
was no actual delivery, and therefore the action cou
not be sustained The judge overruled the motion for
non-sut and allowed the to go to the jury, VIII
found verdict for plaintiff for the amount claimed
! For plaintiff, Mr.. Il, Warner; for defendant, Judg
| Inglis
| UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CouRr, June 10 -Befor
Judge Nelson.-James A. Freeman and John s. Gibson
master and mate Of the bark Chancellor arraigne
! this morning under an indictment charging them wit
being concerned in the slave trade They both peade
| not guilty.
Elias Young then arraigned under an indictmen
charging him with an attempt to create revolt boar
the American ship Phoenix, to which indictment h
pleaded guilty. Sentence not passed
UNITED STATES CIRcuIr CovRr, June Is--Befor
Judge Nelson.-The grand jury into court thi
morning with true bills against the following persons
James A. Freeman and John s. Gibson. master an 10 NJ
of the bark Chancellor and Elias Youngs for enca
to create revolt No other business being hefor
the jury they discharged
CoURr or GENERAL SESSIONS, June ls.--Before p ,
corder Scott and Aldermen Adams and Gilmartin-
Jonas d. Phillips, Assistant District Attorney Pleade
Guiy-Att the opening Of the court this morning Jane