The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-10-23
u. y. District Court.

Der a. ls5O-Peter Cure assignxr o Wlliar a Bales
signee Of Benjamin Town to this balance due
for sails furnished three Aoops ned by the
spondent, A note had been given tor the amount
which had been protested. and renewed by another
note which was also protested for Inent The
Court held that taking note for the balance due
no waiver OF the lien Decree for the hbellant with
reference to the Commissioner report the amount
due, the Judge remarked as there we're three suits
commenced when The three might have been embrace
In one The question OF costs would be reserved until
the coming In II the conmssioners report
Darrd r B'ss.haH %. Thomas SAa!ir, Jr.-In this
case bark Eliza Barss, Owned By the hbeant, char
tered for voyage 10 New Orleans and back at fixed
valuation Of s27C0 one half OF the charter money to
have been paid at New Orleans By the consignees and
the ether half TO have been paid ia New York the
return oargo-ths charter party IL admitted to have
having srr,.sd ssss nj ~et on,t,ag 9h hsr
cargo, consigned to Messrs. 8 Toby * Nephew. The
letter OF advice from the shippers delivered by the
mater TO the conss VINO refused to accept the
consignment TO under tbs charter from Thomas
Sbsler Jr The master then consigned the cargo un-
der HE general powers 20 the house, the
Discharged the house collecting the freight aud the
ayAis paid to thu captain A home cargo was OBJ
tanned by the master aud brought to New YORK, the
sysils Of which also were, by the master or owners,
pac, to the credit oil the voyage This libel seeks
cover t5C2 on che balance Of freight money due the
voyage on the ground that the contract OF areight
mentwas broken ~ New whom the coniguess
fused 20 act under The charter party and consequently
the mater left 70 himself 70 do what best be
could ON the other side II u ingsted that when the
yesssl arrived the master refused to discharge the
cargo unless the cOnsgnees would sscept draft Tor
the oue-Haf OF the ea1J n. lVD or agree To the
same whenever the ship should be discharged a a
condition precedent The proof ~ clear 20 my mind,
that there was no such .onditon anixed TO the De
livery oftbe cargo at New orleans but that upon the
arrival 9th ship the consgnses for Of funds
shaler's in their hands rejected the charter, and
wholly refused to act as eonfgoess OF he cargo
shaler When shipper consigns the cargo TO pasti-
oulsr house sud the house refuses 10 act the charter
party is viola'sd-legaly broken and right Of action
aocrues 10 the owner Of the vessel. reference
be oecroed to ascertain the Just amount e. damages
Der. 22-Hoy aud .qspincaH 80. The Bark HaTI
Chipwan.-The libel cots mp charter party catered
into BY and between nowland and Aspinval on ths
one pert, and Captain henderson, master Of bark
ara Chipman. on the second day Of June 1349. IN
and by when u was agreed that the said barb Ward
Chapman, nc III, port Of New York should take on
boara about on thousand tons Of coal sad convey
,nid coal TO Acapulco coast of Mexico aud there land
the same the b iants 20 pay 80 90 per with the
privilege Of shipp,u launch frrightfree The rsspon-
dents deny the 81 any contract such Ia.
been alleged In this Vol IL becomes the duty Of The
lbellans TO prove the contract ss alleged in thsbs
This Is a mere question involving principle Of
lac whatever The hbeliant claims that the proof al
duced BY hifn shows clearly that, AZ all events far
the cargo OF Goals was concerned oOnsttutlny 5rt
ward bound cargo. the parties did agree aug oia ns
scrieus damage aud loss for the non Performance
1bis Is denied and the testn6ny on either side Il
q be carefully examined snd considered The two
agents bavs pter before the court ard these witnesses
o'hrr "a their account o. tho nsyooistions bets
there psrties and mus. look % The ch 5umsances
end give just estimate 90 the probabilities char
ter party u an agreement contract upon sufficient
orsideTston 60 % the thing stipulated. The minds
standing the sutie,t matter. There raY be- PROPOSE.
uCn after proposition and yet until the minds q che
parties accord wh each Other there g. no agreement
which b. enforced In any court Ia tha pre-
sent | unable. from the evidence % end any
such point. whore did the minds 81 these parties
meet Wac " on the price per ton One agent saws
that 80 80 wac the pro- and The other % $40
WssH on the homewaii cargo Here, u seems, that
one party uneerstood be to haze rodn1 voy age
and the other stnsidsred that he only 20 u nsh
the out yoysge, This point not settled between
them. The lbsilant proves that launch freight free
should be clipped While the other party proves &c
clearly that the rst time the launch freight free vas
known 10 hiH seeing II inserted Ia the written
contract. There was no meeting Of misds here. But
LAST Of all. and moe conclusive thar ell IL the fact
that the parties did not intend that their contract
should rest In paroi Both intended and expected TO
have the matter M wrtisg and when reduced the
matter TO writing according he desired u should
be Vas made evident to the other such was not the
contract to which he bad agreed 10 which he could
end the parties there separate never having
hnished one thing They had talked chartered, aud
proposed but their minds had never met on sensible
OF tangible agree msnt In this view Of the gu eston
there has been no contract other psrol written
which can Be toe foundation Of damages 70 party
OF sny decree sssinst the Other. The libel must be
dismissed, with c)sta