The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-05-29
United States Circuit Court.

MAY 28-- Chas Moristrs. Germs W Lawrence.-This Is
action about $4,000, beins of du
plaintiff claims to be cotton and linen goods, Imputed
by him from France to this country Plaintiff paid the
were only liable to duty Of 20 per cent, whereas
the defendant insisted they were chargeabe with q
duty of 20 per cent ad raorem and compelled the plain
act Of 1912 WAS conceded that the goods were liable
to duty Of 5 per cent but the counsel for the plain.
tiff insisted that that section OF the act was repealed
by the h section of the act of lS48 and that they
chargeable only with duty of 20 per cent pre-
scrbcd by schedule Of the latter act The Court in
verdict for the plaintiff subject to the opinion OF the
Court in Banco to the construction of the 18th Sec
ton of the act Of lS46, upon that the question
turned Verdict for plaintiff for the amount claimed
H. II. G,innen ca. C W. Laurence. This was also
protest. verdict for $1,000 was likewise found in
this cause, for plaintiff
Captain OF the schooner Lady Isabella Francisco
this morning arrested charge Of having assaulted
the cook (coored) Of said vessel with dangerous
weapon He was held to bail in $780,
Obadioh II. Pl1n Is Chauncey Jeroue.-This was an
action to recover $1,G7s 49, the amount of draft
drawn BY Francis Merrill upon defendant accept
ed by the latter, dated LIST March, 1874 and payable
five months after date to the order Of drawer payable
at the Union Bank in the city of New York. II was
transferred by Merrill to the plaintiff Who the 4th
Of April 1874 deposited 1t ut the Phoenix Bank In this
city for collection where 1t remained until IL reached
maturity, and was then protested for non payment,
and returned 1t appeared that the plaintiff after
wards eodythe draft to A. Jeroux who instituted
O
TO collect the amount from Jerome and that that suit
resulted in u nonsuit that the suit was withdrawn
The draft subsequently rctranserred by Jeroux to
the plaintiff who has Instituted the present suit to re-
cover the amount Two drfences are set up-the first
that the acceptance v.n without any consdera-
ton; and secondly. that 1t was obtained by fraud
His Honor charged that the retrausfer OF the DRAFT to
plaintiff RENTED him to all his original rights and
him the samefooting which he stood at tho
time when 1t transferred to him by Merrill, in
April. 1874. The eame II 1t was never out Of his
hands and the suit in Connecticut resulting in a
nonrut, left the paper in the eame state rs it ex
listed anterior to the commencement OF the suit, aud
the r.ran,er vested the plaintiff with the title to the
draft Plaintiff, then, having received the draft from
Merrill s to be dc emed primarily the and hold
Of it, for value, II there was nothing else in the
case, and would be entitled to recover the amount
aganst the acceptor On the part Of the defendant it
claimed that the acceptance was given without any
consideration and for particular purpose to vito
pun chase wool and whish wool was to be given to the
by way Of security The draft seems to have
ton taken by defendant as appears by receipt
given the time L. insisted by defendants counsel
that the drafwhch liz of those referred to In the
|. reccipt-was given without confederation anu Tor
particular aud that 1t was diverted
from that purpose; and that in the next place those
drafts notes procured by imposition on the part
of Merrill; and upon these two grounds 1t IL claimed
that the burden Is thrown plaintiff to show that con-
alteration given by him for the draft In question
On the part of the plaintiff 1t Is replied that ne gave
the draft and in that respect that he
fully complied 18th the rule Of law and he has given
evidence Of a receipt from Merrill dated April 4 !S44
acknowledging the which he from
the plaintiff and which consisted Of an account and
SCI in cash, and deed OF land in Louisiana IT also
appears by the evidence that on the 4th OF April 1874
the draft in possession Of the plaintiff and that on
that day he deposited it Ia the Phoenix Bank for coec
ton Taking these facts Ia connection, think the
receipt admissible in evidence. His Honor then review
the testimony and said the would depend upon
the the jury would take OF the testimony OF
MIR Burr Verdict for plaintiff for the of the
note or draft, and interest.