The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-05-15
Common Pleas, at Nisi Prius.

Before Judge Ulshoefer.
MAY l4.-Junus l.. Leris Us. John r. Reed-Ths wa
an action to recover the value of canal barge alleges
to be sold by plaintiff to defendant. 1t appeared sh
arrived here in August, lS47 from Philadelphia, will
cargo OF coal. After arriving she with an acol
dent ut Of the PIERS and was with her cargo sunk
The owner having herself and the cargo insured absn
doned herr and she continued under water until April
lS48. In the meantime the authorities notified al
parties concerned to her to be raised They dc
clned inasmuch as they had abandoned, and wou
hold the insurance company liable. The insuranc
company also, for that did not appear de
cned to interfere The plaintiff who was in the prac
tice OF raising boats. called the agent Of the
to know they would have her rsised he also cale,
on the owner who had arrived in this city; and after
consultation between the parties, the owner said
would not interfere and the plaintiff might use his ow
discretion. The latter said he would raise the boa
and would claim both herself and the cargo Goals 70
raised; and in very short time afterwards to wit
the month OF May, as tho plaintiff alleges he sol
her to defendant for one hundred and fifty dollars te
dollars Of which Was paid to plaintiff The defen
however, did not take the boat, and finally she drfte
away from the pier at where she raised and wa
wrecked at Staten Island. The defendant set up
three-fold defence-frst, that under the statute {
frauds tho contract for sale, (f anyl should be r.
duced to writing secondly that there was, in fact
sale and delivery; and thirdly. that plaintiff could nc
make out a title, the ownership being in a third pa,
ty, who resided Philadelphia. His honor charged tn
jury that there precise bargain proved betwee
the parties the ordinary mode, however Of proving
contract is by person who by and heard it. Th
is not always practicable, but it may be proved by
cumstances-hrst that the property bargained wa
owned by the plaintiff and that it was delivered
passed to defendant therefore, il party prove that
owned goods, and delivered them another it Is 200
proof and will bind the party for value as may
proved. The first argument made of by defeno
ants counsel against plaintiff as to the character
the testimony, which he contends is not to be avore
by sjury. The law certainly, is not favorable tbs
admissions Of parties, if better evidence can /.
given; but still the law does not altogether di
regard them The next ground Of defence i
that II there was any contract, 1t not re
duced to writing, and that the statute of frauG
requires all contracts in relation to sale of
property to the amount Of $50 and upwards to be r.
duced to writing The plaintiff does not controve,
this point. He admits he has writing but he say
he owned the property and delivered it to the defend
ant. Then all the Court has to say upon that point
if purchaser takes possession Of property the posse
sion IL answer to the statute, and he must pay
it, and you must from the testimony, say whether I'll
did take possession Of it not if he did he il boun
had title and therefore could make no title to a.
defendant. This branch of the defence involves
simple point OF law the facts not controversial
and the question seems to be- what rights plaintiff all
qured to this boat by raising it of the water
the first place. in bargain for the sale of boat Of tb
description bill of was not necessary; IL can t
done by word Of mouth; and If boat of this Kind It
sunk at one Of our piers slips, and Is
abandoned any one has right to raise her and olaf
Is, did he the pa nt prove that he acquired tho owl,
ership OF the beat; that she worth $3.50; and
defendant take possession Of herr If he has prove
those facts to your satisfaction he is entitled to
dict Verdict for plaintiff, S14S
Antoine Boutetc Us: Frederick Yates-Ths q.
tion for SANDER The alleged Islander was that defer
dant called plaintiff thief and said he obtained
goods by false protences. 1t appeared that painti
purchased quantity Of brandy from defendant, f.
which he gave bill He afterwards alleged that Il
brandy was OF an inferior quality and stopped pxymei
of the bill The defendant then commenced a SD
against the plaintiff In the progress Of these procee
ings, difficulties arose between them In the course
which the Islander complained Of was uttered. The d
fence was that plaintiff instituted the present suit
set-oG to defendants The jury found verdict r.
plaintiff Of six cents damages and six cents COSTS
------------
Supreme Court.
Before Justoes Jones' Edmonds and Edvards
NAV l4-No. II, taken up on Thursday, Is still und,
argument.
SPECIAL TERN
Before Justice Edmonds
NAV H-DRoisIONs-.dndrew s. Gts,r .4dminisfyas
&C. ps Deiafeh 4 Gurus Trustees, $c.-Applicstio
that trustees pay costs out OF balance ported aeni
Trustees OF kernochan Mitchell ordered to nie RI
port and application to compel them to sell stoc
denied for the present.
The MAYOR. &C., Of New York, Us Ohp.r CcbS.-rb
compensation VI defendant collector of taxes In vim
been fixed before his election and continuing to b.
nuring his continuance in Office the plaintiff on
resolution subsequently, passed reducing the comper
aton, cannot recover back any part of It. Judgmer
Tor defendant
Joseph Hopkins and OILERS ". Simon Ccrtel.vou an
reports to title con nrmed aud tb
purchaser ordered to nlpiete his purchase
Chas n. Hall vs. Benz. s. Benson An the equities
no plaintiffs com plant being denied by the answe
njunct ton dissolved -
Henry N. Bc~ch Committee L. ps Sou1coy,k a. I;teJ
eid Motion for reference denied with cost to be- paj
" the plaintiffs personally.
Hs'nah r. Ldw'rntslcs 1hows! Lawrere. -Dvorc
. anted
H1,tet @. Coyiord ps. Cha,ks oavloyd-Diyore
rantcd