The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-12-21
Superior Court.

Before Ubief Justice Oakley.
DEc. 19-Ta The case IF the Reeeiuer eftte Pelican Mu
taai Insurance Company rs J. H. and ", fl Haybeeh-
The Judge gave his decision on the motion made for
nonsut the previous evening. He said that 1t Ap-
psarsd him that the valid and ils
gally made, and he dismissed the complaint.
Malicious Prosecution Thomas W. Pigon rs Benjamin
Nathan-It appeared from the statement Of Mr. N b.
Blunt counsel for the plaintiff that this suit for
mseous prosecution brought to recover damages Tor
arrest Of the plaintiff effected at the instgaton OF the
dsfsndant, on the 7th Of March 1s49 The arrest
made on warrant nom Chief Justice Oakley. granted
the oath OF the defendant who charged the plainef
With design 20 his property out Of the juris
ection Of the Superior Court with intent to defrsud
dsLtsd him. Plaintiff alleges that he arrested
he about to sail per the Europa for Europe and
vas subsequently, discharged from arrest. The d.
On behalf Of the defendant, Mr.. James 7. Brady
tends that the not brought before theChief
Justice by force Of the warrant issued by the Judge
bur that the contrary the plaintiff voluntarily
pesred before him being shown the by the
omcer Counsel also states that Pigott had frequent
ly promised TO pay his Indebtedness to Nathan but
neglected to do and that he then about to
esed to Europe, and that he said the monsy owing to
him In New York would be paid to him In England.-
The defendant further urges that Pigott's employer
paid Pisot to the Of 81 500 or 81 600 and Il
appealing that Pigott had not appropriated any part
OF that sum to pay his debt to the defendant there
arrest and that In the absence Of probable this
action would not lie: Defendant also alleges that,
he never mentioned to him that he about to sail
for Europe. Sealed verdict.
.
tin- SIX cents damages and six cents cost.
Before the Hoe. Judge sspdford-Deels.
Garref NJ Mapbee against Jackson Boion.-rhis 10 an
lumber and materials furnished toward the construc
tion Of Dr. Boln house In Fourteenth street. In the
70 enc John snifen A. the contractor for the con.
structon Of the defendants house upon his edt
snd not upon the credit OF the defendant 1t appear
ed from the testimony Of plaintiffs Witnesses that at
the time the lumber sold, sninsn had become
insolvent, and had surrendered MP all his contracts
and did not trust him, except dsfendsnts agent
John Snifen, the principal witness on bshaif Of de-
ON his own credit he Ais stated that he was insol
vent In the year 1s47.
fen Mr.. Blunt Addressed the jury on behalf Of de-
iendsnt, and Mr.. p. Y. Cutler for plaintiff.
The court charged TIE, II the testimony Of the Wit;
20 sninen and not on DR. Bottoms credit, then ths
plaintiff could net recover, but snifens testimony
vss excluded from the case IL Is TO
what the circumstances existing ct the time Of
the sale 1t appears frou the testimony Of Mr. Rblet
that . former bill for similar materials, and made
der similar eircumstspces~as made out in the name OF
DR. Bolton and presented TO him and BY him referred
that Mr. Renvick amer that Il was pretty
high certified IL a. correct, and was then paid By
defendant The principal point in the case excluding
ths witness snihen's testimony 10 In what way was
the former bill paid T. plaintiff Ifthat bill vas paid
~ defendant a. rating the act Of John snisn then
90 charge the dssn asnt With t. and to recover Of hin
The court also charged upon the request OF Mr..
l. II the jury believe that the timber vas sold the
deendants credit and N they believe from the evil
aenee that previous bill composed Of similar items
through the agency Of Jshn snnen and that bill upon
being presented 20 the defendant Tor payment, was
not his sssnt-thso IL Is evidences Of an adoption Of
esiaen's assumed agency which binds the defendant
spifen we're really his ss.st or not IT. That in IN
quirpg whether the defendant adopted the purchase
Of eninep, which he sseumed to make In the defend
fhe heli he 10
entirely immsteris TO Inquire whether the dsisudsat
originally gave authority to snifsn 20 make the pur
proved relstes back TO the te Of the original trans
actiop and makes that good from its original date
Looked 70 him for payment by awaiting himself the
set OF Snihen In purchasing the lumber, even II ne
ed not originally appoint him his agent, must De
from which he derives benefit; e. defendant knew
epgen bought ashis ssen, his account otherwise
evidence Of and even when there Il strong evidence
Of original want Of authority, from the nature Of
the employ ment course OF dealing the principles, re-
sosntions subs.qusnt ratification aud that the
assumed agent scted In one instance. as such agent
with the defends nts kDosledse and without bis dis
cent Is ,ufcient TO bind him although no evidence Of
positive assent IL offered he had an opportunity
to dhsent and did not; and the acts and conduct Of
The principal evincipK an assent 20 the act OF the
agent To be interpreted literally In favor of the
agency and slight circumstances -i sometimes sufhcs
TO rsse the presumption OF ratification which be-
comes stronger In proportion as the onduct Of the
principal Is irconsistent With any other suppo.on.
tssliy came to the the Defendant and With the
defendsnts knouledge that II VA. furnished on his
credit 10 OF Itself priaa acie suncient to make him
liable, ana ne cannot discharge himself by showisg
any private agreement bst-eep himself aud his agent
that the latter only shall be ab. to the seller
fs N ON such facts coming TO his kpo~ledrs he did
not dissent II used by g. In fulfilling his contract he
vas boundsoto dissest not othervis VI. 1.-THE Jury
believe that the defendant entirely Innocent OF
any intention TO commit . fraud upon the plsintiG
end believe he tree from blame In the mstter yet
w. BY bic own acts and conduct he has enabled Stuff
fen. BY giving him credit to practice fraud on the
risinta he e. nevertheless liable upon the principle
that where one Of two innocent persons must suffer
he must suffer who has given the assumed agent the
opportunity and means OF committing the fraud.
fThis last proposition qualified BY the remark that
hts Honor say no evidence which would 70 60 she v
- -.-,s ~ 49, eo.' n 's'se a.