The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-04-03
Supreme Court-CircuIs.

Before Hon Judge Edwards.
M,Rcu 31.Jomes and Eraafus Brooks the Magnetic
Telegraph Comrcny@ New Fmk-This was an action for
breach q contract In the non-dclivcry IL commun
cation transmitted from Washington on the 18th
o. September. 1s4e. the defendants tecgra-
phic line TO the plaintiffs; and u Is alleged that tho
reputation % their paper sustainra damage IN no,
withheld the ground that previous bill re-
manned unpaid and the defendants refused to deliver up
the dispatch of the 18th Of September until the disputed
account settled Several witnesses produced
and the council having summed up on each side the
Judge charged the jury.
1he Judge in his charge to the jury stated that the
plaintiffs in this action editors aud proprietors Of
newspaper published in this city The defendants arc an
Incorporated company whose business II IL to transmit
intelligence from Washington. and other places. to the
city q New York. This suit H. brought for n breach Of
contract and there no difficulty In the case because u
y admitted that the defendants agreed to transmit intel
gcnce 10 the plaintiffs and that they failed TO do
The ground which the defendants refused to deliver
the despatch that there disputed debt due for
former transaction and that the communication would
not be delivered until that debt paid But gentle
whether this n valid claim not II gave the
defendants right to make the payment Il previous
debt the condition for the fulhlment IL that contract
The question then arises What j. the los that has been
sustained by the plaintiffs man II bound. In cases ~
breach Il contract 10 show what amount Of damage he
has sustained and II Is for the jury say what damage
has been shown. This i not however, for cxcin
pery damages Il Is one In which the plaintiffs are emit
tied 70 all the loss they have sustained but they
not entitled to speculative damages In cases OF
breach of contract in the nonclvcry If goods the de-
PENDANT IL liable for the difference between their value at
the they should have been delivered aud their value
at The time they dsiNcftd nat Iartlch
lar damage that has been sustained in this case IL APP
pears that the plaintiffs propretors 81 newspaper,
the reputation Of which principally depends upon the
early intelligence communicates In the course ~ the
testimony the court admitted the plaintiffs to show what
would be the effect upon such paper In casc any inn
portant item 81 public should be- withheld frun ~.
and the that u would he Of serious injury
The evidence admitted for the purpose II shordng
the jury standard 20 the particular damage In
this for that Is all the plaintiffs entitled 70 reco
II appears that this despatch. the ponlcvery Of
which v complained Of had reference 60 some msundcr
standing between the French Minister and the govern
ment ut Washington and IL arrived In this city ON the
evening II the 18th September communication TO the
effect had appeared In the other papers ~ that
mornings that communication consisted 81 about twenty
FIVE words and by the price demanded for the despatch
addressed TO the plaintiffs 1t must have been something
about hundred words and IT L. to he presumed more
substantial in its details the communication has been
lot and the presumption H. there presumption
In the In favor ~ the plaintiffs announced
ny the who came TO the oce q the plaintiffs
frtm the telegraph ONCE that the intelligence ~ i'm
rortanee; and BY the evidence Of the editors of public
papers You will to the conclusion TO the actual
damage the plaintiffs have sustained and they emit
tied TO verdict for that amount.
The Jury. In about half hour, brought In verdict
! for the plaintiffs foy $40.