The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-09-18
Com mon Pleas.

Before Judge UlshGner
SIR. 15.-Burgee rs GrtnneH and sfhsvs.-In thi
case the jury could not agree.
Leroy N Wil,y rs TAs Con~5us Tnsursnes Cospsny
This cause which was commenced on Friday, was
sumed this morning The defence two fold =
hrtt that the abandonment not made IN good
faith second that general average should be struct
with opethird for the differences between nov and old
which would leave the expenses VI repairing far b-lo
half the value OF the vessel Tbs question Of general
average his Honor reserved for the consideration OF
the curt In Bsnco In regard to the other question
he ted the jury. that II tn. abandonment crig
naly made In good faith nothing the, hspp.ned after
wAds could Inv adAte It. and len IL to the juey say
from the evidences. whether the sbsSioument was %
s.rT' IL" B,ps,ss ssS WI. 90 w,;rst-rhi. wa.
an action to recover damages for alleged assault snd
battery. The defendant keeps the New England
House, In Broadway. and In the month Of December
last the plaintiff and bis family boarded there It sp-
pearsd by the complaint that defendant tho lsth
December entered thu BREAKFAST psrlor assaulted the
plaintiffs Wife and drove her and her two children
nom the breakfast table, In tho presence II the
bosrders Two witnessss were examined az to the
sssault-opea coloret gaiter and the othor bozrdsr.
The bosrd.r would not swear that this defendant
touched hirs Byrgsss The vaitsr s-ore that ne put
his hand under her arm, bat that he re-
LEASED her. and helped the child out 81 the chair
Upon this testimony. the counsel for the DEFENDANT
moved for Donsuitson the ground that ssssut
proved His Honor observed that tn. question whether
an astsslt wss committed not for the jury,
and dspied the nop.uit. In giving his opinion. hs
house. bad right tn remove baard.r for cause; aui
after having eivly s,tsd boarder to withdr,w. aud
d.
log hous- usiasd In us forc. provided he us-i
move force than necessary md did not use IL
In rude or vindictive manner Ths defence was
then gone Into vhich vas confined 20 dental of the
sssau merely stating that the defendant r-uss, ed
the plaintiffs ~ifs TO withdraw from the table, as
her husbrpd had not raid their board bill and that
sbs did One 81 the walters aud three b,arder
were sxsnirsa, to prove they the table, sn
that no assaut had been go mtt.d in their
that defendant only spoh. to Mrs Burgess in a 10
voice aud that she left The tabls witness also
produced to prove tina. Mr. Burgess furnhed With
~.
have. The evidences both ssdes then eloaci
ara council summ ed after which the Judge charged
III. jury that the counsel for the plaintiff ard defend.
snt dhrsd very wi,s In regard ~ the merits Of this
esse the PLAINTIFF counsel considsrs ~ vcry grave
and serious on. white the defendants counsel treats
o. sht aud trivial and eutil-i ~ eopsii.ration:
AID ycu IestlsE,sn, are TO consider Who IL right or
who Is wrong u 80, ma. the paintid aud his wife
tuar5sd in D.cembsr lat at the house In
Biosdrsy and that hill 81 SO was 10 arr~sr. and
prtsepted ard the plasiG said he could not then pay
H. On the lsih, VIZ. burgess ani her two ehlldren
cane 70 breakfast and after trkips their seats they
were requested by the ds'c nlant to leave aud ths
uon l. hosebt for the alleged m.coDdu Of dsfriant
on that occssi'n which Is an Alleged constructive
assault aud battery with anything that msy hsv.
occurred a spy previous tine have nothing 20 d
10 only with MAS hsrpsp-d Mt the tssle have TO
deal ard you sretutsy from The t.uinony whrther
an ssaui hsd been committed th-t- not. There Il
10 doubt that " suffers hts bn 10 be In arresr
aud sppaid sud That he - requested 20 leave he H.
bound 10 joso ana " he DO not the hotel keeper has
tight 10 eject him, and to ressonsbls force for
that purpos. You gill perceive that 81 this case thsr,
f.pdspt ronhIirg hifnf.f to drual ~ the fact the
question thsr,tnr shob you have to decide IL vhe-r
th. f'i. ndspt on that occasion mmit.d an ssauit
ON tho plaintiffs wife liis honor then proc-ai.d 80
sive legal d-tnition ~ Assault aud stated tina,
th're we're vsri"us g-ads- Of that offence. An 80.
fsult might he committed by merely touch.
hr the party Va a rude angry msnne-,
or by thr'ai,ning psrty Within striking dis-
tsrc. ehe other ants nsht n. .f the serious
and aggravated character Therefore, geutlemen YOU
viii perceive ny this role that man come INFO
eorft and ask ior redress for assault of the most
trhinR description and " yon fud that assault
committed you ought IT, take into your confederation
whether II sbgh ard trivial or Smother q ga. one
OF trricuS aud srasstsd character massure the
Dan ages accordingly. us Honor thea r-cspituat@d
the testimony 18th sides 10 the jury Nth com.
merts. and concluded by telling them that N thes
we're ~ opinion that assault vas committed, the
plaintiffs worid he entitled 10 verdict; and ~ they
we're - opinion that " was mnittad from nsli,r
ebd In rnde ami Violent manner the pl,uufs ~onld
~ en'ittd 20 such damages NJ would punish In. de
fsudsn; but from the evidence te jury should rs
~ opinion that defrphant di1 MT law his bsod ON
plaintiffs wife In rude and iosultipg manner. aud
onl. r'qnested her n ste the table Ga consequence OF
Der Husbands hill not b-ing paid ~ lac had psrtset
right 10 do, snd tina. she herself vent ssay scn no
sssult vsr committed, aud he tthe dsfenIsnt) would
be entitled TO veid irt. Verdict for defendant