The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-06-15
Circuit Court.


JuEE a. John M. Lauce're rs Nm s. Hammersiy.-
This was action Ia damages for alleged
breach Of contract The parties were in the crockery
trade entered into two contracts for two separate
parcels The first contract was entered into on the
l4th Of November 1915 and is in substance rs follows
Order for eight crates Of flowing blue ampoa ware to
be shipped from Liverpool on or before the first Of
March, 1851 and not later. The second contract
made on the 18th of December 1876 and the
lowing etTect:I here by promise deliver the first
OF April next six crates of pure white granite ware Of
first quality in good condition &c The first contract
ned by the defendants clerk and the second by
the defendant himself The goods mentioned in both
contracts did not arrive until the 18th 26h Of April
following. and consequently, so far as the delivery
concerned p the goods mentioned in the last contract
there failure 1t also appeared in regard to the
goods mentioned ia the first contract, that they
were not shipped until the 18th of March On the 9th
April defendant notified plaintiff Of the arrival Of the
crockery, and that he might have it. The latter
refused, alleging that he had lost the sale of it by
its non-arrival at the time appointed aud sustained
damage the amount Of the profits that he would have
made had it arrived in time and were sold There
two defences set up. First that the writings
proved the trial not contracts binding on de-
PENDANT in judgment Of law; and secondly usage or
custom in the trade under which parties were
bound TO accept goods within certain number OF days
after their arrival.
brought for the fument Of two several contracts
all, to be entered into by the parties for the deli
tracts have been proved and read and the party claim
ing damages has shown by he letters Of defendant him.
slf the non-ful6lmsnt Of them: and II that were tn
only question then would only have to assess the
damages the plaintiff alleges he has sustained which,
upon the showing Of his wnes) y the difference be-
tween the invoice price and the market value Of tn
goods here The main question therefore, arises out OF
the defence On the part Of the 1t is insisted
that those orders did not amount to contract binding
him. and secondly, that they not contracts un-
der the usage he has set up will first take the
cond contract namely, that for the graniteware
Now this seems to be an express contrac
in terms deliver certain quantity of crockeryware
on certain day. There Is extrinsic circumstance
whatever connected with II by which IL be changed
modified. II IL precisely az II one Of you gentlemen,
should centract with your neighbor to deliver to him
the next day property Of any kind Upon this con-
there to to be question, and do not
how the defendant can escape from 1t. On the
other contract there is some difficulty on the face OF
It. Ii purports TO be order sigued b. the defen-
dant's clerk. Now, the question is. was that con-
binding the part Of the defendant to ship the
goods on the LIST Of March In regard to the defen-
dapt letters which have been read the relating
this contract differs from the othern that he ad
mts bis obligation but in this he distinctly disavows
IT. and ond all doubt the plaintiff not bound
to take the goods as they not shipped on the first
OF March; and the only question is should the defen
dant respond in damages! IL Is certainly OF impor-
tsnce TO importers that orders should be strictly OBJ
served and for that purpose 1t Is necessary that
who make those contracts should before they
make them that they comply with their terms
here is much doubt this contract, In the form
in which IL Is stated and differing so much from the
other think IL advisable the present occasion to
instruct you to consider 1t sufficiently binding to
recover damages and dot this principle that II is
perhaps, the safest way to settle this controversy
There express promise and the most that be
said Of 1t Is that 1t is an implied promise He then
charged the jury, that in his opinion usage had
been proved and II the jury agreed with him in that
then the only remaining question to the DANA
ges. He then laid down the rule OF damages and the
Jury retired, and directed TO bring in . sealed
verdict to- morrow (ths) morning
The remains of the late Mai Gen Gaines arrived At