The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-03-31
Superior Court.


Alssioasyy Church. The yeD York Bo~ery Fire In.
the law ofthe ease giving his views which he ss,d he
supposed would not prevail hereafter this not
DC rns nnn ,r'euS before wncn .us case
renew policy upon tbs Brick Methodist Church In
le4S end that vas distinct at the time
q making the policy, that the bulldogs and property
intspdsa De insured should BE- kept insured. aud
the policy renewed from time to time. Now, the qass-
time, exittipg such an agreement. IL not
to continue the policy that the agreement should
rave been IN writing there vas sue,.nng on .S
the President Of the Company relied upon the omiss
Of Armstrong ths agent fer the ehurch to renew the
policy the petition Of the plaintiff the same -
she policy had been paid. or ss IL the company had
ssrsed 70 renew It in writing. He tho judssl would
In writing not and the jury were to decide whether
there was 90 agreement The policy itself says II
there hes been change Of rick that Is one Of the
points for the defence He would leave the case With
the jury to FAY .hsiher ,uoh an agreement existed on
18th October S4S repeating his opinion that IL not
n,esary that n should have been In writing and that
~ agreement with tho President should be considered
Va Id. Verdict for tie defer dsnt.
Before Judge Paine.
March q. james and Mary Jsne LEONARD %. Muller
asar.-This wss action to recover the amount Of
dossr Of female plaintiff. who the widow Of the
late Mr. Peter A. Grifnn, and who previous &, his
sth had sold certain property for 81 800 to which
r. nm Ia ~" Orons an. ,,,',sr y m. ,sosns Of
tae prrDi,es IL stated for the defepes that Mr.
Lscpard guardian had agreed to accept FOR her 800
Per annum, In lieu Of her dover Decision reserved
Before Chief Jo sties OAKLEY.
MARcH IT, J,an Taylor, Jr rs 4brahsm C. Dsyto~,
1sss Saith Ca.s q Dayton This was an action
bend entered into between the parties In the year
1s46 and the sought $40 600 The plsintia is
awsslthy Epgish merchant, and the question raised
whether the bond TO certain les
xdvapces to 10 made by plaintiff or to debt
sub equently isc urred By defendants TO him.
MAncH IS - Soldier q Wa,r~nf- Riekd Lynn From
sis kssctng This suit 30 the value Of .
lend warrant which Il alleged obtained from
the plsintG considerably under the value, While he
IN intoxicated state. The plaintiff had been Z
soldier In the Mexicsn and obtaining bis die
charge, bseaue entitled to = land warrant for 100
acres land He ssd his dischs before be obtained
Il. and he ruNaSthst such proossdipg null
and void. Verdict for plaintiff, s125
Jas. Winions 20 P,fiee 4 Msnn.-This was an action
for breach 81 ctBtrsct for quantity OF Iron The
dsfsn that the terms not having been compiled
With at The spsci6sd time the defendants hAda right
"a rsscIud IT, arr cell ut an advanced price Verdict
for plaintiff $500
CrtnntH y Cs re SrhniSt and ofhers-This was an
sctiop for the vAHe Of of shipped In Dec,
lS46 for Sligo. Ir.lsrd The vesssl tbng Shedenl was
driven iptoS Thomas where the beiog damaged,
vas cold at reduction vefdist for plaints 81 900.
Tho court did not lit on Coed Friday.
wild p'ge,ps are very plentiful In the neishborhood
Ia m mr. an aupl n al H.