New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-05-24
LAW COURTS.

CouRr CAlENBAR-Ths Day.-COmmOa Pic1s
Part l. Nos 4l3, 1863, CAT, IS, 81, 1913, 5s2, 6Gj,
13e Part H. Nos LOG, 1926, $50, 352 3j4, 356, 3jr,
800, 800, 964, J66, 36e $40, 372, 374.
. SUPREME CouRr-GeaeraiI erm--Same as yes
terda,, emitting No. -.
COURT OF COMMON Pr EAs-Befors Jadgc Ingra
ham James lloyd VS.. city N Ncw York. To re-
cover the value of Horse belonging TO plaintiff,
who is carman, and for injury TO cart and harness,
which horse fell into an excavation wnhe oein3
driven through BrOome ST. between La0fens and
Thompson, on the evening Of 9Th Octoberlast. Ihe
excavation had been made for the purpos, OF re-
pairing the sewer, and did not have asy hghtto
show The danger.
Ii was shown that plaintiff had petitioned the
Common Council TO be allowed $50, bat afterwards
Withdrew his petition.
For defense il was oOntended taat where IA
opepug is so left by the carlessness OF the perso
doing H. he should be responsible, aud not the city
also that the horse was blind, and the plaintiff
wns Guilty of negligence in driving animal Of the
kind in the dark. On the other IL was said the
horse would have been worth $500 had IL not oeeh
blind and was worth 300 at the time oil the injury
tit died in about two months. Also, that the
driver was not blind IL the horse was, &c.
The Court charged that any person orc0rpora
ton, their agent, leaving an excavation or in
eumbrsnce on the street. without light, and dam
age ensues, they are liable. As to the horse being
blind, that is only important as requiring little
more care on the part of the driver The plaintiffs
entitled to be made good for his loss. Verdict for
pleintH for sll5.
Before Judge WoodruH-Hol5rook Garter &.
Co vs. Elisabeth Mr.-To recover $500, amount
OF note endorsed by Mrs. NJ. for the passage OF
Der bro her-in.aw, John w Hyatt and his son. in
the ship Apollo, to California, in Dec 1913. This
case was concluded The note was given to Mr.
Moses Y. Beach, and paid by him, on account OF in
suraDce to plaintiffs The parties did not go in the
ship but their bertbs were reserved. The defense
la fail0 IN he nj IA
chip 1t was shown by several persons, that the
ship was strong ard substantial, every way com
Portable, ami performed her voyage well and by
the testimony Of the late owner and Mr.. Zebedee
Cook that she was readily insured by the Insurance
Offices. Ii was shown that before the note vas
taken Mr. II. told the parties before concluding the
engagement 10 examine the ship and inquire for
themselves. She took out, 1t was shown by tho
testimony OF Mr.. Joseph Beach, who went In her,
65 passengers, at $3.50 each, who at their own SO
icitsoD, received back 500 each at San Francisco,
- IN lieu OF reseryng right TO board and return
The point relied upon for defense is an advertise
ment In the Sun describing the vessel as A No. /,
fast sailer, &c whereas her rate at the Insurance
Offices was A y or :, principally on account Of her
age, she being built in ls9l Also. that Mr. b.
represent that she equal TO the advertise.
meat, &c.
The Court charged that II G person engares
passage, and alterward reflses to GO they forfeit
theii passsgemoney, unless they can show i'm.
they were Of character from which they would
likely be deceived by them. The ordinary recon-
meL0ation Of sn advertisement or even misrepre.
sentatioa OF article, where the party has op.
poytunity to inquire o. examine for himself cannot
AVOID contract if a party misreprescnts bat
supposes he is stating what is correct it is not
iasd, but if be states thing as true without
knowing whether it "a 60 or not and the opposite
part, IS deceived thereby it is the same - he
wilfuly misrepreseDted. Il the Jury consider That
the parties, after exercising due diligence ani
Judgment themselves, were msled they VIII find
1o- de'endsnt, otherwise for plaintiff Verde. ,hs
ioEcpooo.
SUTKRIoR CoURI-Trsnsien, Tcrm.--josQ'H .
NogEe vs.. Phu,P ). Ioa R,Hsscl9er,in the
Spring Of 1885, coach horse worth 5000 0slons.
ING Il NJ. T. was run against aud injured by the
cnrriage Of Mr.. Van Il. Nc 7. trough. a. .;oa 6r
tie damage 10 the horse, which was refcsrel 10
Mr. Charles q COnor, who awarded SIS idama Is,
b, s.de costs. TIE present Is an appeal The
horse Of M. T. wes tied opposite his stable in a
narrow street near Washington square, II which
the sable Of rg Van Z. was also Kept The
coachmst oflatser in gotslt upon the BOX droppsd
n reir, aud he horses started. the step Of the
cs-risse striking the hip ci NJ. Us borss IL is
fastened in the street, which was denied. Messrs
Ccrnei' eud Hall appear ior plaintiff anl Mcssrs.
Terry AM Cstlog ior defense.
sfffkN tot HI NoA'lh a 80. al Ay'VA'
from Sycrisi Term IS to suit by Mr. Van Hens
selsar against tic Commissioners Of TIE Hudson
River Railroad Company VAS a7clej, NsssEs. l..
Ssodf,rt asa & q Butler appearing.
An appeal in the case of Join & - vs. D0rii
lea. ~, rccei.tr North American Tris; GO nPany,
was then taAtng ~. The suit was ia Relation 20 4
boud ara tnortgase sie,n by Ne &. - tno Com
pay, AID hc caiIas lis turn o. the gcaud thai
The Company WIS BOT oIsasiSsl o2.Amlb.y n
lave nd ,lcreE.e incoDpetcaf % transact asst
ness. Tie appesl il iioA Judge McCosn, Ia
"a esichester County wh0 decided ncsi0st NJ {.
The sf.Ument " ~ b. cor'iuaed th.s ,fcaOOa.
y-e N,RsHAfs OYFics--C apt Mason, Of tie
slio Opbe.is. was comPlsinsd Of by Va L lot
o,s ~ i,e NV. ior c7aci AID unasn.i pal.sa ask
H. gas bed ~ hG.l Eor % Gmlat'oa 80.
.,.r, q tI,rrse s,.lBsi. ~. Eogstssi - sal Ma