The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-12-16
Common Pleas.
RefOra In Aga IJIahoefTo


Dec 16-Ms,y Leopo dvs. Len Poppsnheimer.-Thil
was an ton breach of promise OF marriage The
parties are Germans. The plaintiff BY her complaint
alleged, that che became acquainted with the dsfsn-
dAnt in this city that they had entered into
gsgement to BIZ married that, subsequently, the do
fendsnt declined 20 fulfil his promise The first de-
fence set up was, that the promise condition
that is that when the defendant had procured SUM-
Glen property to maintain wife and family he would
marry the plaintiff and that hs had not yet been
to procure sufficient for that purpose secondly that
complainant had misconducted herself No eviden CO
was given to sustain the last defence The jury found
G.. w. Niles vs. Daniel Webaer.-This was an action
on promissory note for 0OO bearing date the 9th
OF January 1916, together with interest IL peared
that Mr. Webster pure hased from Mr. Price honss
and fur nitnre and some other property, at Weehaw
ken, New Jersey For the house and he
gave bond and mortgage, and for the furniture he
gave The note In suit. Mr.. Price and MIR. Webster
had other dealings. and the former claimed that the
trsnssctio When the note became due II was not
Mr. Price alleges paid and he then passed 1t to the
plaintiff, who now seeks to recover the amount The
defendant pleaded Mt and proved that he sent
two drafts from Boston for $500 each to Mr. Price to
tahc up this note. MIR. Price was examined, aud
proved he received the drafts but that be applied
The proceeds in part liquidation Of his other claims
against Mr.. Webster. Mr.. Stuftevsnt was then
mined on the part Of the defence, and he testified
that he called upon Mr. Price for statement Of the
accounts bet himself and Mr.. Wsbster-that such
state ment furnished, In which the two drafts
suit. Mr.. Price recalled, and admitted that the
statement nished by his clerk through mistake,
but that he afterwards than once told Mr. Stur-
tenant So and that he furnished second state ment,
in which the mistake corrected, and the drafts
applied in discharge of the bond aud mortgage.
The testimony Of the Witnesses in regard to the
conversations they had with each other on the sub
ject was conflicting. The judge charged the jury
that rule law, that where there several
accounts between parties the debtor when he RENTED
money on account had . right to direct 1t to be sp.
piled in discharge OF either OF the accounts; a for
ample, Mr.. Webster might direct those drafts to be
applied in discharge Of the note las he says he did, or
OF the bond mortgage and the creditor bound
to conform his directions; but II he merely remit
ted the money without giving any instructions rs to
how it should be applied then the creditor Was at IL
berty to apply to which OF the he thought
1T. He then rscapituated the testimony and cem.
mepted upon it, leaving to the jury to say whether
not. The jury found general verdict for the de-
PENDANT. The plaintiffs counsel, however, iasisted
that the amount of the drafts did not tn,
The Judge then directed the jury to and for the plain
TIL for the amount Of interest. Verdict for plaintiff
Of $103.