New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-03-31
Circuit Oourt......sAruR0AY, March p.
Before Judge Edwards.

York Express FOR uondeivery OF Communication trans
mined BY Telegraph The complaint forth that
passed by the Stse Of Mary and Ia 1896 incopo
The company Of defendant for the purpose Of erecag
and maintaining line Of eegra ph communication between
We shtngon and New York and Intermediate towns and
cities and under which they established line OF telegraph
and are The common carriers Of communications snd NEE
ssges BY Of said teesphc line between said points
and intermediate place for hire and for which said com
parry and entitled 10 receive therefor certain sums
money the spuaied price and reward for the service
OF conveying such inell gence, communications aud mes
ssses which said price and reward s fixed by aad defend
ants themselves Il was part and parcel otthe business and
the duty OF deendAnts when the intelligence and commu
picaions received by them for transmission
init the to their destination and then TO copy the same
paper and send the same 10 the person or persons TO
whom directed sealed, Aad for which the said price, a.
aforesaid. Ia TO be paid.
Plaintiffs further say that iae 18th OF September ls49
they and previous thereto had BEEN the editors and
publishers and poprieors OF Two daily newspaper In the
City ofNew-York viz the Nep' York Morning ETpyess
and the Nic York Ereng Erprsss n which are recorded
the dai intelligence and latest Of importance to the
community receved through various mediums, OF which
that received by elegrAphc communication was the
Important that said 18Th Of September notice left
the Office Of plaintiffs BY agent Of defendant that ihey
pOrtan dispatch, containing, PLAINTIFF believe important
public news, OF eatmporanee TO the com nuny aud to
the subscribers OF sd papers, for hebeneh OF whom and
for the plaintiffs II necessary that taid dispatch
should be given to the plaintiffs immediate pub
lcaon IN their ssG pc pers that plaintiffs called a. the
Office of the Company and demanded the same rendering
the time the amount OF the toll or charge demanded
by the Company W. - &c. bat the agent refused to de-
liver said communication, although the money was ten
dered N advance, &c.
Plaintiffs further say that in consequence OF said refusal
by defend plaintiffs ost the publication thereof and the
benefit OF the advBntages which would enufed FROM
is publication and their subscribers were deprived OF the
adyanLg 10 be derived rom IT, and they believe some OF
the subscribers their said papers have Ia consequence Of
the publication OF the said Important dispatch dscon
tnued taking the same and they have sustained other
special damage consequence Of the said refusal
deliver said important dispatch, to the amount OF $4,000.
Mr. White IN opening the for plaintiff, said
eount OF the new invenon Of the tsegrb ph this novel
case and the " adjudication that has been had In regard
10 the rights OF the public and the respousib y OF the
hFinp Fagulrad faithflllV
form the contract into which they enter Gs common car
riers o. communications from one point TO another Mr.
w. showed the necessity OF The companies being held
strictly TO perform their agreements and the great adj
vantage which night accrue to themselves In the way OF
speculation. AID injury TO the public and indtvid-
uals on their receiving important communication were
they permitted, with Importantly 10 Withhold thu COM
uuncstions from the parties for whom intended. In
the present case the dispatch important the
ETprest. It contained information Of great Interest
the fact Of he french minister being rendered his
ports when the french Government had refused to REGAL
him. and which, at the mOmeB created much sensation 10
The pubic mind The agent OF me company called 81 lhe
Express Office and refused TO deliver the dspach aI the
same time saying It importantly unless previous DIS
puted settled which the clerk al the Express
Office was not authorized 10 DO Immediately aterwsfd
messenger the Telegraph oce and tbs charge
for hls particular dispatch rendered. but the companys
agents refused deliver IT, and 1t obtained
Mr. w referred To- the that they had right with
hold The dispatch, when the toll for had been endered-
or claim lien that for previous sputed account
common carrier has no lien for transmission convey
except upon the particular article conveyed ana as
whholds article In which the charge Is rendered, he
renders himself liable. The company, Mr.. w. remarked,
il SLOWED 70 WITHHOLD COMMUNICATIONS under Invalid
groUnds might ruin any Paper That i Pssss The ~
10 ieeersphs &c. Mr.. w showed the mode by which
dispatch was received at the Telegraph ONCE, and copies
Of Il around the associated papers, OF which the
Efgress WIS one IL will he for the Jury 70 say what
amount OF damsges will remuuersIe for the injury and
prevent the recurrence Of similar wrong
M KHe,iaRd TowHsend testified 70 q gentleman be-
longing the Telegraph Company calling Al the Express
Office evening, 18Th September, and said they had
very important dispatch Tor the olce from Washington
and could have five would pay an old disputed bill
Iuyus ID
the dis Gch; shortly Bferward went to the fesgraph
Office another clerk and ssAed for the dlssacn Al
the time rendering g &c. the amount he charged Tor
It's transms,ion be refused deliver Il unless tho old dts
puled account settled, and We never gott Mr. z;
showed the importance 10 IN papers Of being furnished
with telegraphlc reports and The injury "hcL "oua &C.
cue 10 their being withheld II hurts spa2ef no!Io get
the latest news sc
Mr. Moses Beach, one OF the editors sod propneoy'
Of The SUM- Mr. n. r. simpson, othe Day Book and Mr.
Fredk Hudson connected with the editorial department
Of the Herald also testified 20 70 me necessary OF sPeper
receiving The ielegaphic communications &c, aud tue
injury t. paper nOG getting them.
Mr. Smith asked the witnesses II tbs same news had
been published 10 the journals IN the morning and ao Ia the
afternoon papers Of that day, and aso IN tho Express
lEelf Of the afternoon, which came out a. O'CLOCK
rbis communication being received SIT still IL would
have yAue-he answers were II The account In lhe morn
ing copied the afternoon rapers vague and un-
ceTsip the dispatch in the afternoon In confederation
would be equally valuable az received 10 ihe morning
Ifbey were The same words and the same authority
vauable-snc then paper Is benentef By hayngn
OWE dispatch instead Of giving credit TO another paper
The testimony FOR plaintiff having closed, DR.. Smith
ferred 10 special damage ard had been shewn Also
hat the Telegraph could not be held a. common carriers
The COuu considered that The plesdngs were sutcieut
" general Suppose matter OF mere contract and
The couusct has been broken abe panuh 10 entitled 20
damages even nominal, and the nonsut cannot DO a.
lowed A TO the rule Of damages being new and novel
Gaze that 10 question OF some dlhcuy aud me Coar1 WI"
hear Counse. before i submits no qsslor 70 me Jury
The line OF defendant The only Southern telegraph
line a. that time 10 existence.
Mr Smith opened for the defense. de said here had
been some lille difficulty 10 the pay for some previous
communications over the line and me young mao sup
posed be had right to withhold This communication win
aview enforcing payment Of what was due Mr. > con-
ended that no special damage had been occasoned and
hal II nothing more ths1 simple contract Tor
breach OF which Emsrimoney cannot a. IN SANDER ana
other cases Of the Aird, be sivsn, kc -,,-,--
Mr. John GREGORY leslhed to having been enet opera
Tor al Inc TeegrAph Office RecoecI The dispatch IA ques
ION. ihiuk il Wa received between and o'clock, a.
was going the CLERK had copied and enclosed y
ard about sending BOY win 10 ne Efsss Itsq
would lake il myself and did told NJ Townsend
had dispatch Of some importance, which be eou nave
by paving Bill which YVES then ssnding Mr. saa ne nA
nothing 10 DO with that then took II back 70 the oee and
left Instructions deliver Il unets the Otner o.
was paid read part Of the dispatch - 10 was received
and Il The same | carried 70 the EEress once
/ vas NOT operating II The time, BAT my attention was
called 70 f. on account Of the character OF the inegenes
Thought Il unusus for Inc French Minister 10 have his
sssporta return edf looked II here some musf ia
Ire camp The charge a. hat tine FOR ieegrapne com
muncslion was 70 Genus WORD ior toe hrss ~ ~ols -.
cents word afler~oro All no persons 10 nc ono
allowed The dispatches lhL cone II Lney psass
We note on tie original copy scot Us !, Lsnsa .a s
nis the wires then ME it-and NE same s done
M smis offered 20 show that he dispatch was IN the
FTyes the same afternoon, but appeared not 70 have
been eegFspbic report bot an extract under ne eolo-
nal and it being shown 10 witness was ec1ed TO- @ 10
must 6rst state what the dispatch contained, &c
Wines had been 10 the Office al dsy.
Mr. Smith gave testimony 20 show Lnaiins olsPAich az,
Md by M Gregory the Egess Office had been handed
nv M Norton one Of the Stockholders % him. tMf 81
bnt ost While Mr.. 8 was moving. Mr. Morton also gave
sor,e ntile testimony Ss 10 the paper
Tt,4 case stands "a iourned 20 this forenoon
Superior COurt....s SATURDAY March 2
GENERAL TERa-DEcIsToSs.