The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-06-13
Superior Court.


Edmond Lafisn agent and attorney OF plaintiff and
Joph iioxe ~ the agent aud secretary OF defendants
buildings, &c, ~ Paterson, New Jersey. No premium
paid In this and policy delivered TO plaintiff
Amount claimed 5000 aud Interest.
The defence u, that inasmuch pre- MUM
paid and policy either called for delivered the
parties entered into contract and that the alleged
agreement nothing more than mere con versation
between Laiian and lioxie, which ripened into
contract AMI that Therefore defendants not liable
The complaint WAS dismissed
Before Hon Judge Mason
CURIOUS CASE-TftH STATUTE OF LIMITATION.
JCSr lo-TAcuass Co,heai R.beccd Brok Erecui,f-
Of the late John Brock This action brought BY the
plaintiff sgainst the defendant "a the widow and xecu
trix OF the late John Brock who died in isss but
10 that time jewencr carrying business in Chatham
street in this city II appeared that the plaintiff
bis employment clerk, named Flower who abscondei
from his service In the year 1879 taking with him
f2ooo belonging TO mr cothea. and came to this
country and set up business In Chatham street. under
tbs aeum-1 name Of John Brock and subsequently,
wrote TO Mr. Cothei, acknowledging his indebted ness
and promising 70 nquidate II he able
After his death Mr. Cothes made this claim and pro-
duc~ the letter which he had received fum Brock The
widow and eIecutrix would admit tho claim, and the
plaintiff then commenced this action to recover the
amount. The defence Is the statute Of Limitation and
also that the claim legal 1t would have been dis.
charged on application 10 Mr. Brock who veil known
In thi- city for years Mr. Mxtsel. the chief u Police
examined 90 sbow that he had never received any
instructions respecting John Brock and that he could
have be. easily found. fhs Judge charged that the
principal question for the jury sh~ther du. dli.
gtnoe bad ben used by the plaintiff to trace abscond
debtor 10 his money before the expra-
tion Of the statute of limitation June ltth the jury
returned sealed verdict for the plaintiff Of fiooct 81
scrToS FOR A VALUABLE Carlo OF HIDES.
jim l2-Jchn Ffei~n and efh,rs, yorhi~ Ton-This
action arising Of the nonde,ivery Of sixteen
thousand and twenty eight hides and Ave bales OF horse
hair. which the PLAINTIFF aese shipped board
the BAmbursh brig Robert Louisa" Mt tho port Of
sssdo by Ajo Arosena the 18th Of Marcb 1873 and
consigned 20 the plaintiffs who merchants Of this
city, that they are lawfully entitled % them Jet the de-
ndspt Who u the master Of the vessel has failed to de-
liver the goods TO them though the brig has arrived In
New York The vslu. Of the goodsi- said to lie $4,000
and the plaintiffs dcmsnd either that they shall be deli.
ved TO then, that hey may be awarded the amount
together with damages for their detention
The defence H. thsi the PLAINTIFF refused TO pay the
charges which tie ds'eass.t By the charter, contends
that he Wa snt asd 10 ana which include too cents per
pcrpd freight f5 Brah yer day, fer forty three days
he delayed NJ sssdo and ~ stipulated to be given
comp. p.aion 20 Oh. MASTER II appeared that the
plaintiffs paid def, pdsnt $1,000 after this suit
m-nced. and $3.50 rs subsequently which was the
amount q freight and the An compensation but they
psy the further demand for forty days
desy and the insists that he entitled TO
retain The csrgo until this demand satisfied The
evidence Is nesrly all documentary Adjourned