New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-02-18
NETWORK DAILY TRIBUNE, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 49, 1851

there L. sufficient evidence questions damages newly
discovered evidence SC must be brought before the sPe
may apply to the General Term on appeal
We cannot disturb the verdict the ground either
u sucenoy Ot evidence excessive damages ii prop
ery maintained The damages 90 not appear to be mOfs
man reasonable The prosecution AZ ains Mr. Bulkeywss
carried on with zeal aud vigor, and tbs plaintiff slh
verdict
AS TO The Judges charge the charge IL given IN the bill
Of exceptions IN The practice Of entering excep
lions the illusions OF fact IN Jud ye charge IL not 10 Il,
encouraged snd altogether improper uness the posoa
Uked FOR by defendants sound that iiey have rgb Ia
bring Il squeston before the general that the Jud g
has gone beyond the line OF his duty and mised the
tai bis charge ed 70 verdict which, 10 the exercise of
lkeir ordinary discretion would not have been obtained
The charge may be cal very decided one to mat.
tes OF fact and must have had an effect upon the u The
question IL wheher In such charge, assuming that be
It's character The Judge has gone beyond Tie line Of bis
The right Of the Judge comment on case canno, be
questioned; II every DAY placuce and sometimes as
serted for the purposes o. usce ad ausion 10 the facts
as wei az 10 the law is matter to be len 10 his solnd dis
creton The security in relation TO must be IN tho sense
ofrespousbiy Of the Judge II not 10 DC aslned taat
he would take with view TO compFomt the case
We not prepared to say that case might MOI present
Itself where injustice had grown out OF the chafge tat
parry might not apply for relief. D.,
But il is not necessary say whether this exception Is
justified bv the fac OF not The question Is. whether ne
Cont has ght 20 consider this the manner brought
before H. Between the charge and the Jury me as vas
rrorrv apprsed by The Judge thai the questions OF fact
were entirely heT disposal IN THIS aspee OF ,le SIse
cannot see there was anything 10 avail he doiena-u
here ,-.,,.-...-..
arv errc in POINT Of aw committed by the Judge IN SUD
milling this The Jury Some doubt has arisen 10 oar
minds growing Of the vOuminous character o. me
charge Various propositions were submitted ~ de.enG
ante counsel the Judge, in writing which he answered.
aud al manner Of exceptions taken The Judge was cael
upon charge this hing and that thing Tbs manner OF
csecLising Judge Is practce which u extremely si
harrsssing ard which for one, (ssd Chief Justice Oak
ley " no delivered the opnionl viii not encou age When
gentlemen either side present TO ma questions re-
ceve and lock at hem then 20 on ard give me such
Instructions az / think the case calls Tor Sholl nave
maee any emissions, or such am always glad 10 De re-
minded Of d.
As to the point that TIE Judge, from the affidavit pre-
before The Magistrate by defendant should have
deoceo that there probable cause ana not permitted
The 10 20 the Jury, that no. Probable cause
Is where party from know led &c OF facts a the time
proceeds against person The atdays are Only admit
led behefof the deferdan for they may be worth
1t for The Jury. from all the Circumstances say proba-
be cause Is nyed question Of Jaw sud 2c-. and proper
TO be submitted 20 ihe Jury.
Tie Court therefore does not consider there was any
error Of law, nor he sct that Mr. Bukey. day two
aer tine Trial n Common Pleas had power Of attorney,
evidence Of bis posse ssiol or interest at The rial
Asfo PIE points ~ he beyond thai OF The law point
the General Tenn came. entertain them ana does not
feel cal ed upon interfere as 10 The verdict MoHon for
trial denied. ~
Eugene LenGlhon vs.. TIE City Of Nelc-
York-Psirf obtained a verdict Tor 5000 or $1,000 No
tee was imediaiey given by defendants counsel OF 2p
peal an be was do without giving security for
costs This s a vhich the Court Will encourage as
very ofel hy he neais case may De aeciae1 wlots
sscord TRIAL iii necessary for both parties to be present
and Ia his case however Tie notice was not on,
the Clerks books nor had the plaintiff perfected
oement As the latter point the course VIII be Tor ne
losing party notify the other TO perfect Judgment and
he not the Court will compel him 10 do So and pay
costs Of melton unless be show cause 20 the contrary
Plaintiffs counsel having made no objection, and puaied
to argue the the December Tenn. is preclu-ed rom
setting Up that The msler irregular The present appeal
is dismissed. hut without costs
Geo. w. Souiev Vim. H. Burroughs
Restye to money deposited in Court in suit between the
parties Mr s said, has gone 10 California Order
al Special Term affirmed.
Robt L. Crooke and others ads. VIM. p.
Funs-On note for 81 eco given the Crot)n ms. Co
premium and ranferred by the Company to de-
fcrdan with hers, IN 1916, collateral for loan OF
$1,000 Verdict given for defendant and appeal made
The Court thinks The obec ions not we'll taken. Wnen an
individual receives transferred by company which
appears the face be regular he not bound 10 goto The
company and examine its minutes To see II has been re-
iected by OF The directors Any inegUlarly OF me
company should affect bona ide holder without no
tice Beside which plaintiff Or the Finance Com
miitee Of the company which acted upon the loan Mo-
lion Tor trial denied.
Henri Wood, Receiver, VS.. Peter and
jacob Lambert and Others rider setting aside former ndg
ment on the ground notice of the application to settle
the should have been given 10 the defendants Al
tOmey.
Robert S. Comstock, defendant in error,
ads Leonard Bropn, plaintiff in rTOy.-Mohon denied
without costs.
Roberts VS.. RanddH.-Order modified so
that order becY be affirmed, without costs.