The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-03-23
Superior Court.

TIE RIGHTS or AN EMPLOYER AND AN ENPoYEE-A
sEwsvESDER VERSUS A NEWSPAPER PROPRIETOR.
MAHcH 22.-ln the Superior Court yesterday before
Chief Justice Oakley, an action brought BY per-
son named Hathaway against the proprietor OF this
paper, for alleged breach Of contract in Diminishing
him nom the situation Of Newspaper carrier Of .the
Fifteenth ward, and the damages modestly laid
at s6o,o. IL was alleged ON the part Of the plAn-
tn that he had purchased the route from sir
wingate the previous occuper Of that wall, for the
cum % sb5f, and that he continued TO serve the
Hr4 TO the subscribers Of the Feeath ward for two
years namely, from 1s46 TO isss-vhen he was dis.
misssd by the proprietor without notice Just cause
that the circumstances q his succeeding the former
made with his cosnizance and without any obi sction
his part. Pisintig making from SIS to SO per
10 realize much more or dispose Of Il at eoasidersb.
increase on the sum Witch be bad paid tor IL. Mr..
kdvsrd sanford, counsel Tor defendant, after the
opening q the case By plaintiffs counsel moved that
the complaint be dsulssed, no such conclusion as
sought 60 ~ made cut could be established The
complaint Of MIR Hathaway vas that the proprietor Of
the Herald would sell him his goods The def, ndsut
not bound under any obligation to eel the paintl
his papers There vas no relation between windgats
(he person from whom Hathaway purchased the route
and the defendant except that be OF the
rers who purchased the Herald at the once st cent
ard half and cold u 20 the subscribers At two cents
There nothing In the complaint 20 show that the
defer dsnt was connected directly Indirectly
tsnce MIR sanford commended that IL sale Of routes
from carrier 10 another expressly prohibited
by the defendant, aud that the carriers were called
together, by public advertisement, ct meeting Ia
1871 when such directions strictly given them;
aud further that the plaintiff had violated the under
standing made between the proprietor Of the Herald
and the carriers: that as they established
excse corps they should not carry any other paper;
and the plsintif admits that at tks time he was Dis
missed he Tin violation Of that agreement) selling
other pspers
The Judge said he would hear some evidence before
be entertained the motion TO dsmss the complaint.
After the examination OF several witnesses for the
plaintiff, Mr.. Sanford renewed his motion.
The Judge said he was much struck 1t the unusual
ssIsct Of the from the opening and for that
.on he listened 20 the testimony. After reviewing the
evidence, the Court raid the principle con,ended
i,r is general one-tbet man cannot dismiss per-
icu vho has purchased right from another who, him
se hss orvht 60 cell It. am not prepared t. sdopt
he principle advanced ~ the plslntifrs counsel
tlat VINO PURCHASES n right has right TO compel
surthtt 20 continue g. 10 would embsffsss trads and
en- uy ers very much fer instance. aborers journey.
men and pssters. The master may dismiss mis- Jour.
neymsn when he pleases, aud the journey man may
leave he employment an called upon TO establish
that the Law implies contract In The present ease
not prepared TO do 80. is aquesiion Of i'm ense
~ great interest both 60 the parties and the commu-
ally and win therefore dismiss this complaint With
leave to the plaintiff 10 appeal to The general ts-n
without security.
I'VE shall give repor. Of the case In day or two
The fact elected during the investigation that the
carriers Of the HaH frequently dispose OF thsr sool
viii q route fer 5000 created greet stouishment In
Court, at which not only the Judge, but every one
preFeIt, seemed 10 be amszed1