The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-04-01


. purchaser In tive weeks afterwards; 1 sid
the Tribune route for SO, my route part OF the
Second and part OF the Fourth wards, continued to
sell the Herald, and finally sold It to man named
England for 5000.
Mr. d. d. Field lous of the State codifiers.) coun-
Gel for p'sintid-.Wny, we paid nearly $500 Tor
Witness oontinued--NIr. whitney and Mr. Kingsley,
In my time were tho gentlemen whom the carriers had
to deal with; I think mentioned to them that Eng
land had bought the rou," the carriers dealt
directly with dr Bennett q toe Express puoiis
ed In Wall street! A. That's not ths meaning Of .
vh0h .. osy
much week for serving them; (sughter;) We stand
on our own bottom lLsugh.srl
they refuss to sell papers Ut the Herald Office,
that they ssk them where they going TO sell them
Robert Cream have asked served such q
reut" kDowle.t every "rout' .as given out to- dis
while they performed their duty.
Mr. ssndford.it vss understood among the carriers,
but not among the people OF the ofhse'
Witpess-l don understood what you mean;
have no legal bubbles among carriers loud lsugh.sr)
MIR Bennett complained to me about the error Of my
serving the Tribune instead OF the Herald no very
civil, and told me to DISPOSE Of it; when sold my
"rout" to Mr. England took him TO the of,s and In
troduoed him. q. Don't you know that you said 1t
the oce that Mr. England was to serve the for
you, and did you not tell Mr. England that II you we're
70 say he had purchased IL Mr. Bennett would dismiss
word said ut the meeting Of St about not selling other
papers; Mr. Roe and several others we're prs'sat;
not. Off nothing said 1T the meeting about
carrying other papers, hos you to ask Mr.. Ben.
Bennett asked me IL carried any other paper; tsd
him carried the R,w Era, aud he made ojection
70 mat. , SS not Ss,y any either a. that TINE but
Abel Houseworth i carried the Herald In 18th
ward in ls46 ana for three four years koo~ tia,
Hathaway served the Herald In the 10th ward kuss
the routsn Of the Herald bought and sold and
! presume the fact vas Enown at the Office. Mr..
kinesmii epquired OF mo II ] had purchased the
" rout.n I bsugbt IL from Samuel wyckod. 1 gave
him $3.50 FOR the TrsbIae aud Herald. vent TO the
Sss the aSs. s0a s
out to Copgor.
was merely TO Mr.. kinssmill, ssd ! subscribed my
nsms on tns carriers ooox.
he examined The carriers book was very large
book the names put the hrst page Ut IL It
vas kept In the mail room. when Q purc
made, one carrier name Vas erased snd tbs other put
Mr. ssodford.-Aud when carrier vas d. missed his
name vas erased, aud another put In Its place! Wit
ness II presume 90, but never kns~ . carrier TO be
dismtsseo but Mr Hathaway.
MIR ID. Field Zone OF the State coiiaersJ eounss
for the plaintiff here rested hts case.
Mr.. Sanford renewed his motion to dismiss
the complaint. IL had MT been proved that ths
defendant either had knoslsdss of or sanction
ed the sals OF these routes. la city like
this, come regulation must b male b. which
10. o, 70. s % ssS
through the several Yards But tbs question 10 wnsn
trans,r takes pAcs b-ts-en those carriers-s trsas
be In Law be- bouad To accept the trAossrse' IL HATH
away presented to Mr. Bennett whs, prevent
looks Does the sale the parties prevent
Mr. Bennett from suoseluentiy saying do not ike
your uay OF doing business and will not retain you,
IL IL service st sunsrances service a. viii. rness
parties cannot get on the par; OF the
defendant BY any azreement between tnems-issa sap
poss Mole ward Of subscribers we're tosay stop my
psper"--shst would becoms of the csrri-rs Is Nir
Bennett under any greater obsstoo 60 tns plaintiff TO
sell MIN his paper than the people 81 the ward TO
TAX hat 4
saying TO the carrier stop my paper There must
valuable copsidsrson u the dsf.odsnt TO compel MIN
TO continus supply the paper All tsAt appssrs In this
h. that Mr.. Bennett employs person TO count
papers and receive the moury tbs carriers sud
is not binding on Mr. Bsnnett Tue msrs sunsrsucs
part 81 the defendant cannot coost,tuts right
PROBABILITY that Mr B-nuss. viii g. sssisasi with
the IN thsy purchase merely the good VIII OF ous
smother HOG are . Jury 20 sss.ss damages In sues
the plaintiff or defendant may iivsf No tine hxed
Even In the case Of co psrtner.hp which 10 muoo
its oostiaospcs, that although man may give up
extensive BUSINESS relation become the partner Of
o~rn tn. partner may ss,, on the ssTl a.y, .i as
solve the psrsefsnp end zee tbs Leg v not sov tbs
nan 70 mss msas .ns ss'nne. 81 ms s.n oain..
cd ~ Be lsid down death Itself opud not sbsovs NJ
BsDpelt ms estate you'd be liable sad the obligation
Mr.. d. d. Field (ons os the sat. eod,a.rs)
council for plaintiff opposed th- motion for nensu g.
=
bought sold from 1885 TO the present; H appears
that this ksosn In too issano-s oo- Of the wit
nssss tsstiues that Mr. Bespett far knss and ID.
NIT Cd the custom that shsa h fousd h. ga. s.rvss
the Tssss< instead 81 the H,rsS he ssve him time o.
sell bic route for the T,un this briass BON, to hin
knovl~dge Of ~; he n pr~su ned 10 knJs shat done
In nis that IL legal presumption
the 10. does not deem " the copsusotoo u contrast
prscs Of sbe poysr for instance IN Of
AIT 81 vfli land rules Of isv are founded on suslo
gy) In England and In ireland the las provides for
rtn A. A tad Am In
s.,. i.,a ae.. sA.s . s.ily reports. o. n:
issy, .ss that A.y sssso, :. di.aissS g ss.
rule vss IaS do-s - The cess Of elsrs wh.rs no as
nniss time vas s,scidsd vss bsA shst his engage
vss Gee. Der. 70 90 20 n. jury nis ellen, hsd S~.u
turned Oh from . place vhish he could have cold
10, $50 Or $50 ror, than ,. , s.a pad TOR is
right Of either psrsy 70 sever shis spgssemsnt what
risht q action -oul Mr.. Bennett nave against this
the psp-rsf whsr. his remedy Tor tne injury 70
HE business By the paper not being served throughout
the vsrd.' u SIR, baIlos had no right what right
could abe psintid hsvsi As Hathaway never entered
into Obligation 20 take the paper there cannot be
any oens.,on on me pa q hr s.nsst 70 ssl sh.S,
unusual expect OF the from the spenns, end foe
that re>4os he listened 70 the tsssino-y. After re
,i-vtrx TIE evidence the Court saa the pvineips
eos,.poso fos Is general oue-tbsi Smsn cannot dis
| mice person vho has purohs.ed rxhs from snothsf
.ho hispsef hes right 10 cell Here ere certain
persons essd carriers vbo supplied With pevsps
pess the ono. u the publishes, 81 certain rata
ere vho ssrvs them 70 the suose'ieess ~ an
Of PROFIT; a coutended that the prsotice of buyfsa
apd Yelling thee routes has existed for long time;
tbey sprer 10 b. ~ considerable value aud toe Court
hsd they uxht for such sums ~ has
been svcrn ~ here This pr.ctioe, r. would sssuus
vss tsosp 70 Mr. Bennett 10 does not par that he
ever ohjsctsd 20 u but the question r-sults,
vbeher fcm that ccurvs q Transaction, The lsv v'l
impiy contract On the part - Me-. B-nnett W COO
unss ..I rsr-oe 10 bic eugioy@.ss :. lsns - be .'i
tend uas AR. Bennett must hep person IN hh empoy
mtnt be dccs Dot cnocre but ~ " ssner-a priocps
skst man Garnet be dsmts,ed without cause With.
tutpoper ncts-c. II domestic s~rvsnt " dismissed
without cause ther- II god grounds " recover .
months raxss This cs>e r. . novei sad IN, pur
tns- estes bsve sccurr~d where usse. gives err.
tstn riebfs, boz the pffnoipie nbeeded fov n q
t.~sr. A.. 49,