New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-06-28


making charge OF larceny, or that he suspected
her Of larceny when some OF her clothing was re-
moved and she was searched by some Policemen,
Mr.. Nee. assisting in the search bat nothing being
found upon her she was discharged.
When Mrs. N. first went into the store Mr.. WI
lians himself was not there, but after q while came
to where she was and followed her 70 the di'ieren,
parts Of the store to which the young man VINO was
waiting upon her carried her in order to get the ar
tcles she asked for. Mr.. w then took his hat and
said he would 20 after an Police Officer This
was toward night and he did not return. Subse-
quently Nee. sent eryman for officer as stated.
tits chargedthat McC. after Mrs n. had been ashort
time in the store, came near to where she was The
being one of the Witnesses said the shop walker,
that Is the person employer TO go rlund ana see
that the other clerks did their duty, and that the
customers are waited upon and asked her, IN an
improper idea how goes bust ess nowF and
placed bis hand improply upon her This was de-
MED by Mr.. McC. he saying he had really r ference
to her busness-which in turn was dened-and
me ely brushed past her person he suspected
from appearance, she had anything concealed
Mr.. Brady, for defense, contending that nothing
had been shown duplicating Messrs. Williams or
Bergman in sending Mrs. N. TO the station-house,
and that they ought TO be acquitted. This was
opposed by MIR. Marsh for plaintiffs, who contend.
ed that the course pursued by Mr.. Williams, and
bis saying he would 60 for police officer, although
he had no cause for suspicion, was the cue by which
the CLERKS acted, ana mat bergman was
ly guilty as Mr.. Nice. in OBTAINING Mrs. N. and
finally going for police officer.
Judge Paine, though expressing doubt as to the
decision, held that Messrs. w. and b. had not done
sufficient TO submit their case TO the Jury, and di
rected the Jury to find verdict, pro lorna, OF &C
quttal az to them. Two OF the jurors refused to do
So saying it not their opinion that they should
be acquitted but the Judge told them that such be.
ing his directions he being the decider OF the law
"a. ..o;r 1ntx 70 oh nan aid
would do so because the Judge said they must obey
him. but il was not their verdict. verdict was
then entered acquitting Messrs. Williams and Ber-
rymaD, leaving only Mr. c. for the action of the
Jury.
Mr.. Brady, in summing up for defendant, said
that they would acknowledge that Mrs. n. was of
unexceptiOnable character, and that the whole
matter was mistake. 1t is known that women
are employed sometimes in shopliftipg and also in
passing counterfeit money, and 1t is necessary that
storekeepers should be upon their guard. Mr.
McC. is poor young man, having nothing bat his
salary, had no interest in the matter, and he hoped
the Jnry would deal kindly with him.
Mr.. Marsh, in reply repudiated the idea that it
was a mistake. There was no cause for the mis-.
take, as Mrs n. had not been ar enough 10 any
goods that she could take. He appealed 10 the
Jury that their own wives or sisters, unsuspectipg
and innocent as this lady had been, on going to a
store to make purchase, might be taken to the Po-
clothing, and searched, not by their own sex,
which he regretted was not the practice at the
stationhouses, but by men, and subjected 10 all the
trial and grievances growing out Of such an occur.
renee. He regretted that Mr. Williams, the only
responsible man, and he believed the leading one
in the affair." had been acquitted by the Court,
leaving TO the plaintiff no redress except as to one
of the Clerks, but he still thought if the Jury gave
verdict that he might be reached, as If he had
any right feeling be would pay the verdict in such
a case, had against his Clerk.
The Court in charging admoRshed the Jury
against this latter idea 1t may be that on re-
view by full Court it may be considered that the
testimony against Mr.. W. was sufficient to let his
case go to the Jury in which event he can be made
liable, but the Jury must look only, in the present
case as to Mr.. Nee. The Jury returned a verdict
for plaintiff of 5000. For plaintiff, Messrs. Marsh
and Sturtevant for defendant, Mr.. James 7. Brady
and MIR. Hushson.
Before Judge Oakley.-AuStin Mclean vs.. John
Tdylor.-To recover damage for alleged imperfect
dyeing blue cotton yarn, by which goods striped
with the yarn in the manufacture were injured in
consequence of the blue fading, already referred
to- The Court, in its charge said that If dyer
takes yarn goods to dye he is bound to do it in
work manlike manner or pay damages and the rule
of damage would be the difference in the actual
sale of the manufactured article owing to the dete
rioration. 1t has been said that the dyeing was
done properly but the blue came out owing 70 the
inferior quality of the manufectu ed goods requir
ing extra bleaching. IL so, the dyer is not liable.
Verdict for defendant.
Scott q. Bel VS.. John Scorreur-By brokers
against owner of brig Orleans, from New Orleans,
to recover s74 80, being 2 per cent on s2970 re-
covered from Insurance Company on damage, and
sl35 being per cent for storing and taking charge
Of Sl3 500 worth OF sugar arrived in said brig.
g. & b. were applied to by defendants agent,
Judge Martenee, for advice to insuring and also
as TO adjusting loss-they went with him to the
Insurance Offices and also after loss was ascertain.
ed referred him " Mr.. 8. Baldwin TO adjust the
loss and handed TO Mr.. b. the necessary papers,
&c. Mr.. B. on adjusting, allowed s. x b. S74 80
as stated, tw othrds Of which to be paid by the In
surance Companies, which they have paid, and is
held by defendants counsel and one-third by de-
fe1dant On arrival of the vessel Mr Scorreur, de-
PENDANT came himself asked S X b. 3 take the
CARGO store and sell it, bat afterward concluded 10
hold awhile for better market Learning that
Mesrs. S. & B. had stored the sugar in their own
names he became offended, took 1t way from them
ard gave it to another house to SELL Messrs. s. X
B claim that they had a right, according to usage,
TO store it in their own names, and were entitled
TO the usage of l per cent commission, when they
SO took charge of property, the same as they had
sold il. The proof showed the latter price TO be
the usage, but where brokers merely sell by sam.
pie and bring the parties together, it is per cent
The testimony varied az to the custom, except from
special directions Of storing property in their
names The Court in its charge, said it was
question for the Jury as to the servces-f they
considered the services had been performed, as
claimed, and the price charged was the usual one
the plaintiffs entitled to it. Verdict for plain
tifs S2O9 80, being amount-For plaintiffs, Messrs.
Cleveland 4 Titus for defendant, Messrs. Hiram
Keicham and H. Fessenden