The New York herald., 1850-01-12
Court OF Common Pleas.
Refara IuH0a Ipyrahap,

Before Judge Ingraham.
JAN. n.-Soifer Us. Dosn.-This an action for
injuiiyi inflicted on the plaintiff who was a medical
student by the defendants dog 1t appeared that the
parties were neghbors, residing in Twenty Second
street aud the dog Of the defendant through the
fence which divided their premises and bit the
In the leg, whereby Is alleged. he sustained much
from lameness. After the examination of some wit
nessss Mr. Gerard moved behalf Of the defendant
for noDsuit on the grounds that it vas not proved
the dog was habitualy vicious nor that defen Mt
keptthe dog Knowing him to be dangerous The udge
ordered nonsuit to be entered for the defendant
Before Judge DAILY
THE RIGHTS OF SUNDAY NEwsPAPERs-LMPoRrANr
10 THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS.
UHham b. Smith and Others, IS. d c. MoreLead The
paintife proprietors Of weekly wspsper enti-
tisa the Sundoy Courier, published In this city and the
defendant H. advertising me deal practitioner The
present action was for sum Of SO claimed by Messs
Smith Co. for advertising for DR.. Morehesd, for a
tween the parties and which defendant refuses to
pay, contehdipg that he made agreement for the
advertisement Plaintiffs. however, proved the con-
tract through an authorized agent. Another, and n
novel ground Of defeuce also raised namely that
the publication OF Sunday newspapers nuisance,
offensive to morality and religion, aud in vioison Of
the amended statutes which prohibit sale OF goods
and mercha ndise on the Sabbath.
Judge DAILY, In charging the jury said that agent
may contrLct for the principal and recognition Of
the pribcpsl nds him If there Is any authority for
the brother Of defendant TO contract this debt the
plaintiffs uet recover. There are circumsta in
this sho~ing similar nraots the part Of Dr.
Morehesd with other sunday papers-his recognition
OF tnle cobtrhct anu MS tn2t pfother
said right In the conflict Of testimony, the jury
to decide who II to be credited IL the contract
made for Fix months Ind the plaintiffs commenced
the publication this complete contract, and the
defendant could not then WITHDRAW it sad the plain
tis entitled to the amount
when the contract on their part completed. The
second branch OF this Is important upon
general principle than its pertinance to this suit
Sunday Is set apart by Divine I'M onctiop aud human
regulation, rs day Of rest from serve labor In
own statute, we provide In general terms for the
Observance Of the Sabbathit provides that no
labor shall be done, except In eases Of necessity
What Is matter Of necessity must be governed by the
Of necessity by the general universal usage
In this city, might be discoubtenanced In Boston.
What has been done In this city by the general con-
sent Of law gvers would be prohibited in other States
How far publishing newspaper Is q violation Of the
sabbath Is LETT TO your own common sense The sale
OF Newspaper ON Sunday certainly comes within ths
statute prohibiting the sale Of goods and
but there Is evidence Of fsie here though it was
proved that the ofice open Sunday Ia there
any evidence that The actual publication took place
Sunday, and, for aught know 90 the contrary the
publication may have been com peted this prsvisus
night before the hour that marks the arrival Of the
Sabbath morning But does that prohibition ~ the
statute render this contract void This IL not
tract for the sale Of newspapers Il Is for the pubes
tion of an advcftisement' The sale and publication
are separate and distinct matters The construction
NUT be rigid well for the that all penal sta
trtes construed also fer the that II s
In IioOf that the defendant employed other Sandsy
newspapers for the same purpose IL cannot, there
fore be urgd that the defence this point Is made
upon the ground Of advancing morals for the pro-
motion Of the general coed
The jury in a few minutes, returned a verdict for
the plaintiff of ssl 90 being the amount claimed and
interest aimee the expiration OF the contract