The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-05-29
Superior Court.
PART FIRST.
Before Chief Jugtice Oakley


MAY 20 Laurence Glynn Jerome Finch and others
This action brought by the plaintiff camphene
of stages running through Blocker street recover
damages for running into the plaintiffs wagon upsctting
it damaging the vehicle and splitting the spirits The de-
fence that the wagon driven against the stage
Verdict for the plaintiff, SIS.
MAY q --Geoygc H. Ripp Taentine Mager.-This
action for assault and battery, which took place
in the house of the defendant in Elizabeth street
the 3lst of August last Damages laid So OoO
and the jury returned verdict for the plaintiff for
$500.
Alleged Breach Of Contract --Raynond u.s. Webb-There
is the calender, at the suit of Henry j. Fay
mond against JAS Watson Webb for alleged breach
OF contract in relation to the plaintiffs claim share
in the Courier Enquirer; but this is the last day for
trials this month it is not likely to be reached till next
term.
PART SECOND.
Before Hon. Judge Sanford
MAY 26-7he Metropolitan Bank rs Wm. and James Cur
rie-The jury. to whom was submitted the following
questions In the above into court this morn
ing with the following answers-Tave the Metropolitan
Bank assumed and taken this check Of 81 400 their
own! A-No. Was the check of $1,000 credited by the
ton in the pass book of the latter before the Currcs no
fed the Metropolitan Bank not to pay it! Ayes. Was
the check of $1,000 credited by the Metropolitan Bank
the Mechanics Banking Association in the ledger of the
Metropolitan Bank before the Currcs gave the notice
pay it? A-Yes. Thereupon the Court ordered judy
ment for the plaintiffs, for s4.3l5 81 damages.
an ACTION FOR BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRrAGH-AL-
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. poR $4,000
NAY 27.-Ehsabeth Richards John o Brien--
plaintiff in this action was rather good looking young
woman. Both parties in humble life-the female
being domestic servant and the defendant faring
man who now keeps small boarding house and grog
chop Cedar street From the statement the part
the plaintiff it appeared that the LIST Of March 1850
the defendant had promised her MARRIAGE that she
fded in that promises had remained single since,
and Is ready and willing to marry him. but that the
defendant had since married another woman, in May
1851 1t is also stated that the defendant under the
solemn promise OF marriage seduced the plaintiff.
Damages are laid at $1,000.
Elizabeth Brown, married woman deposed that she
knows the plaintiff knew her at 1sl East Broadway We
house of Mrs. Wood, where she cook she living
there in January 1885, went to live there chamber
maid and remained there nine months; left the plain
tiff there have seen the defendant at the house OF Mrs
Wood, In February, 1885, he called there with Miss
Richards brother John he afterwards called very often
he tlonc he nearly every day for four five
weeks went to the sometimes, and he asked for
Miss Richards; they went out together almost every
evening and in before ten o'clock; he made her
present Of pair Of gloves and shoes comb and bunch
Of coral he brought the box Of coral In carriage and
they went TO the Museum together he left the city about
March; before he went he called with some books and
told give them her he paintiG). he had not
time to her. she up stairs gave the books to
Miss Richards Miss Richards letters from Mr. Bren
from Boston. Letters produced and identified BY wit
ness read them over with the plaintiff when they
were received Miss Richards answered these letters
went with her sometimes and them deposited In the
post office; Mr. Wood died on the 18th; the defendant
came back from Boston; he said he had returned from
Boston, he stayed in Miss Richards company all that
day; he called every evening for about two or threo
weeks the first day he from Boston Sunday be
long purse and said he intended to marry her did not
hear him say anything else; after few weeks be only
came about once week.
Odd you notice any change in the appearance OF
Miss Richards after that time'
MIR. L. E. Buckley the part of the defendant, OBJ
cted This action for breach Of promise Of
nage, he did not understand the law to be that
woman could bring action In her for seduc-
ton for to sustain that action she should be herself
| witness
Mr. Williams said II action for bresch Of pro-
mise ana he thought he entitled to show this
stance In aggravation Of the breach Of promise
1.-THE Court sustained the objection.
Witness continued-At the expiration OF few weeks
Mr.. O'brien discontinued his visits altogether
Croes-exAInned--O' Brien before oclock that
morning; he did mot breakfast there; do not know
man named Marks, or Tom Day never knew any other
gentleman to visit Miss Richards except Mr. OIr;en:
did mot coachman TO visit her; she did not s,t on
0Brsns lap before mo; they did hug and kiss ons
another before me. CAugbter)
william Peterson, swede) depossd Il reside at No
90 West street. In this oty know defendant o, Dren
be used 10 board with me; saw 0Brien and Richards
brother Of plaintiff tosctheri asked defendant thst
was the man you 20 to court his sister,n Laughter
i OBrien said Yes;r defendant told he thought o
opening grog shop In the city We went In search Of