The Arkansas banner., 1849-01-30
selling Cotton by snrnp.e.

fas tai!oNIa. case was ttlesl SSfere the Superior Court of the city 0; New York. ou the 20th ulg. The report s from the New HofkJo of Com taefcs:
 J1asss Ise < e. vs Rofqa4 q Hazard. .-Th;. was an action 10 recover the Ff5cs Of wsi tt-hine bales nf cotcH sold io the defend mt ai g. l6 ceuts pqr pound, ID Jsnaary, lSI7 The defendant rur- chased the cotton here by sample, as he alleges and conveyed f to his factory al Rhode Island. and davs aie t arrived ihese he botifsd the plain tl4k iha seftE i ai to h sAis.ssls- ald that he would Bot seep f. The plaintiffs refused fo take t bacE and the defendant Eat person in his own employ ent a take samples !fcm be coiion and sold t ty aGcton al his E1iiis and had 1T purchased ioF himself at ; cents prt ponnd, bring ire highest price offered. Il appeared in ey deuce ttal the satnpi-s which fhc defendant purchased lie cojtcn here had been taken from the bales in rte usual tnanHcr ard bv person ho usually per- formed sncii work. Bat they were Old samples when shown fo the dgfsndsai. The iSo sets oi ssmgies, lie oa which the defendant, made the purchase and tae one which the defendants clerk had made wafs produeed, and some persons eonuec- ted with she cotton trade weie oi opinion that ihe samples taken hy the defendants elsTk were iHie- rioy .o those on which he had purchased ihe cotton 10 the afauuHt ot about haH cert. per pound. IL however appeared tia, ;Ae defeUdant dsd not now prodGce more than ous-hsH the samples on wbIch he had purchased ihe cotton. IL also appeared irorn the esIdeEee of pefsoas connected ~ith the Trade, that samples oi cotton improve n appearance by being handled. by ;ae salioas FeTsoas Wbo ex- aud f vas CoHieUNsL taAt t{AeIe N As Do other Sarlsnee between the samples shown 10 the defendant. when he nr.t purchased the cotton. aud the hale tron wiIch ibey were taken, except what m shi naturally have arisen Eom thec being handled. Besides the alleged difference in inc value oi h- cotton, the defendant also claimed go be allowed the exJ ense ct transporting i; 10 khote Island.
 The ecuTi charged tbe jury There could be 10 question but that his a sale by saTTp.s, and in such casf ,he law implies that he bulk o he article should be equal 10 he sample. l. however appeared that n itis case the samples Lad been some tune hand, and that samples of cottoa grow better by h.uciiug; aud inc defendant being ccnsersant with The matter, must De presumed 10 have known i'. And II buyer and seller both kaow that IL improves by handling neither oi theFa coGid haEe been 'ce- eejged in that respect. The court therefore, does uo; think that ihe general rEls a relation 10 samples should be too strictly cetsured in such case. This isoplOying of samples also affected the case ia o'bes Poat of view. The samples winch were given to Mir Hazard. al the time el ihe sale, were brought 10 Rhode Island. and were now produced to show that he o.beT samples were aot equal to them, bul be could Eel ell heV much these sample, might have slace impFosed, ior va; tlerc any evidence 10 show WIFI was tfesxssle of these samples al the lime of ibe sale The deienaaGi had rgM 10 make any charge iof transporting The goods. He only ea'itled o an allowance for iie difference. a iherc was sy, in the quality of the cotton. al tbe ,trs~ ssf d. -is.ss.
 Verdir, iar e.eisudaa', sI, oo. being he lug p7icG 8, which the cotton Was sold by plaialias lo asivpdani.