The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-02-21
Superior Court.
Before Hon .Iudua Aaaov

DoiWo hoo JuuBe uAeon
FEE D-Jas Htehinson G.. ~. Comstock and
john c. Comstock This suit was for the value OF
dants for the sum OF sa2s on the i.th that the .ni
NAL was sound 1t 10 alleged that at thu time Of sale
the horse was not sound and that plaintiff had bssn
put to for OF the horse the OF
$500 Tho tried before, when a verdict w,a
given for plaintiff for Slas 10 bill OF exceptions
was taken st the trial, which argued in the gu
preme Court, and the verdict set aside The defence
IT, that the horse sound when sold and that his
imperfectiops arose from subsequent treatment
cidspt while in the possession OF tho plaintiff Sealed
verdict.
Richard Decker, Charles d. Mafheps and THsmdv
Ga, diner This was suit on . nets for 80 36s &C.
dated lst Nov ls47 made By plaintiff to the order Of
Jones, and the defendant, Thomas Gardiner. This
has been trial for several days 1t appeared
Decker for the purpose of being discounted In the
Manhattan Bank, and applied to particular purpose
The Manhattan Bank refused to discount It, and James
Jones put the note In safe in the Office and he al
eges that Mathews took 1t out without his kno Wedge
or consent, and IL to Gardiner and that Gardiner
proceeds to their own purposes On tn. other hand,
1t is alleged that Mathews took out the nste In the
presence OF James Jones, and with his consent, and
that part OF the proceeds was banded to Jones and
anether portion given to Mathews to pay debt due
BY Jones to Mathews. Mr Gerard sum med up on
and after q lensthensd and able charge from the
Jude the Jury retired but had not agreed at the
rising OF tho Court. Sealed verdict.
GENERAL TERM
Before Chief Justice Oakley and Hon Judges SAndod
ana Paine
FEs. 20.-.aiber G. Bagiey respondent Gerrit and
Edgar M Smith, oppeilants.-rhis was an appeal from
the special terri Of this court to set aside verdict for
81 500 obtained by Mr. Bagey, the gold pen and pen
Gil case manufacturer, in Broadway. against the
Mesers. Smith in action for a breach OF covenant
The parties were formerly co partners in business
and the breach Of covenant complained Of, was
that the appellants dissolved the partnership dur.
ing the temporary absence of Mr Bssley from
this city, without sufficient cause or due notice.
The ground Of appeal, as contended By Messrs.
Lord and Y. B. Cutting, were on exceptions taken
to the charge Of the judge at tAe trial-thst i'm
proper evidence had been admitted and ase that the
damages excessive On behalf Of the respondent
Messrs. j. elosson and Hutchngs contended that
there was clear breach Of express, Independent
covenant; that in estimating the damages the Court
below properly instructed the jury that they might
take into consideration tho probable profits Of Mr..
Bagsly not rele of damage, but circu instance
one Of the Of enabling them to arrive at the
amount the plaintiff ought TO recover for damages
Counsel for respondent also submitted that the
dict cannot be disturbed as against evidence where
the evidence is doubtful, unless Ii be manfestly and
palpabIy against the decided weight and preponder-
of evidence that the verdict Is not oessivs
does 1t call for the interference Of this court De-
cision reserved.