New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-03-20
Superior Court. WEDNESDAY,. March Is.
Besole Judga OaklaT

MIR " alleges thai owing to negligence in the constrc-
ton observer 10 Murray IN 1897 he cellar ofhs buildings
l08 and no Murray and l66 and l67 WettsL owned by
him. have been rendered useless IN consequence of the
water rom the sewer working through, &C. the cellars
10 recover $4,000 damages
FOR defense Il is denied that The sewer wss negigenty
constructed ard It Is syerTed that the water IN the cellars
caused by the tide &c The case Is still on For plaintiff
Messrs Mott Carey.
Before Judge Paine.
Lar as 10 Siordgc.-GuiLldune Merle,
cf a. vs. Clrsop1cr Ro5Jts ef al TO recover small
btu for storage OF molssIes the defense TO which that The
head OF Of the cstks had been broken Ia snd the
tents lost already referred TO- The store Of Mr. NJ occu-
pies three lots and The carts drive into the store where the
storage delivered instead Of placing II on tho tewak
IL commended by plaintiff that the mOasses ia this
lad been delivered while for defense It alleged that il
delivered I'll placed the sidewalk beyond tho
lock and key Of the store This IS the second Trial OF the
csfe, ard the costs are large
The following is the charge OF the Court
Tse witness Hull, has proved that by the usages OF
this City, mossses is when required ~ be delivered placed
upon the sidewalk and is then considered delivered be-
fore being removed by the owner and hat his Is the
at all warehouses except the plaintiffs Bat ne says The
plaintiffs store has cartway for carts 10 drive into the
store, and there take the goods aud ta when goods
placed there IL Is considered the when al other
stores the goods are placed upon the sidewalk lie also
says that plaintiffs do not charge storage goods asr
placing them IN the gangWRy. He also says that this was
The practise that for twelve years aud tn they
have refuGed TO put goods on the sidewalk.
lf you he jury believe the usage to be stated by
Hull and that the custom OF plaintiffs store be has
rangement for delivering, and It publicly
business here then, see why you should
consider goods placed In the gangway for delivery the
same in effect as II placed upon the side walk and you
will consider that the witness Hamstaer testihes that the
moasIes brought into the store upon the cart through
The gangwsy they were taken out This would seem
be tbs part OF the defendants TO that mode
Of receiving and delivering goods.
But leave The whole question Of usage to you and II
you should be Of opinion upon the evidence that here was
eivery Of the mossIes to The defendant then you viii
fro verdict for plaintiffs 6 the full amount ofthe storage
~ however you should be of opinion that there was
sivery but that The molaasss waStl IN the custody
and care OF The P3ns en y c bs Hs o s9u b
liable, every boudsmRn is liable except for gross
negligence for that want OF care which pruden, exer
Ordinary care He Is not abe % oss U sae om ae
dent heD ne s no. n default lie y 2s t o
Ii Is for you say whether you see 10 this any owl
derce Of gross negligence on the part Of the panf5 and
whe her this accident lid not occur without the fault or any
In determining this question, you also 10 take
into consideration how far the accident msy have been
brought about by the defendants having coopers there en-
gagged AZ the time Ia coopehng the c6sks.
II you think the accident would moi have occurred had
NOT the coopeTs been there 50 engaged you ought
hold the plaintiffs liable for the accident n you should be
OF opinion that the accident out OF the casks having
been IN process OF cooperage the consequences ought not
II you ihink the plaintiffs should not bs charged with
the loss Of the mOlasses viii md ths whole amount
claimed by them, and ST. ST. and interest II you think
they should be charged with the loss then you Will deduct
from that sum the amount 81 the Joss BY the bursting OF the
hog head"
srd being $50 carrying costs Of both trials Had the
bid been deducted the costs would have been against
plaintiffs.
Geo. B. Morewood y co. VS.. BatelLe y
Reatot On agreement through abroker In 1871 10
purchase SO32 gallons English linseed OIL 10 arrive per
ship Sarah The vessel was detained some months, and IN
the meantime MeIsrs B. gave notice that they con
sdered The nonarival cancel Of the agreement. They
refused lake It arrival and It was sold on their ac'
The jury former trial OF the case gave YER
dict for plaintiffs OF 1917 g. the difference which was set
aside and The present trial ordered 70 be concluded this
forenoon.