The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-07-27
Ma rlno Court.


july 26.--janss Sc,yn,ser, Jr., against John w
Porter and H. r Cxmings-lhis was an action to
recover one month rent OF lofts OF premises Nos 81
and Sc Pearl street, previous TO LIST Of May. De-
tendants occupied the premises at $50 per month
On the I'd day of May Ia t, the LIST being Sunday,
plaintiff gave notice in writing, about 10 A. NJ that
If they occupied the premises after that day they
should pay $50 per month. Defendants continued in
possession OF the premises during the month OF May
and rendered $35 for the rent and insisted that the
notice from plaintiff was too short The Court held
that their term having expired on the LIST of May.
they should have inquired of the landlord whether
they could have the premises longer and upon wnat
terms; that the fac. of remaining after getting
tce was an acquiesenee on their part. and in ac-
cordance with the ruling in Carr d Payne. ALB,
his Honor gave judgment for the amount claimed.
q. e. S. Hanks against Lutz + Webbr.-rhis
was an action for damages arising out OF breach Of
contract. Defendants agreed to pay plaintiffs $40
for plastering two houses in ST. Mark, pace-the
defendants were to furnish the materials. Plaintiff,
and their workmen performed portion IF the work,
and received therefor $780, they aege that for want
OF materials they had to stop the work; whereas,
had they been furnished with the necessary materials
and allowed to finish the job they would have rea.
l,zed a handsome profit. The defendants deny that
they omitted to furnish the materials aud insist that
for what plaintiffs did on the buildings, they were
overpaid. From the evidence, it appeared that the
plaintiffs men called on of the defendants and
insisted that he should furnish them with water to
make the mortar, and for want OF which, one wit
ness swore that the men remained idle for some eight
or nine days; after which defendants made con-
tract with another party to finish the job, and paid
$lT0 therefor. The Court did not consider that de-
PENDANTS were bound to furnish the water TOR mixing
the mortar, and that plaintiffs had abandoned the
job, and were fully paid for what they had done.
judgment for defendants
Before Hon. Judge Thompson.
Hyi0nd g. Smut, rs. Sherman and 0thers.-This
action was brought to for fortythre barrels
OF enions. az two dollars and twenty-five cents per
barrel. The onions sold at pier No. "a. North
river, and had been shipped on board the brig Devon
q, ~
pier and part the brig Pal.tiT said tue onions
good, but not of the best quality. Defendants
then offered to prove that the onions perfectly
worthless; but the Court ruled such evidence to be
wholly iDadniissibc. on the ground that this was
where the action Of caUeat cmp,or applied. The
defendants had an opportunity, at the time and bo
foe tue purchase to examine the onions and to learn
for themselves what kind OF goods they were pur.
chasing. No effort to conceal the quality was at
tempted by tie sellers; and tho purchasers
bought them with their eyes open and judy
meht must therefore be delivered for the plaintiffs
for the price agreed to be paid-ninoty-sx dollars
and seventy-fve cents.
VILLAIN COOK Us. Ecets & Bro,ca.-This action
was brought to recover the sum Of one hundred and
seventy five dollars for damages for not delivering
twenty four thousand segars, which defendants sold
to the plautif The testimony in the case disclosed
the following facts Thomas Jo,ce, broker for the
plaintiff, the 18th day Of April, 1853 purchased
at auction sale by Girard Il Belts, auctionecrs,
twenty four thousand Hondo segars, which then
in bond. The segars were sold by a sample box,
number Of which Joice, the broker took away with
him after the purchase. The amount paid for the
segsrs was four dollars per thousand, the purchaser
To ay in addition the government duty upon them.
which was one dollar and eighty cents per thousand.
bill OF the segars was mace out by Grard d Belts
at four dolliI per thousand, which. with the duty
added made, In all one hundred thrty.nine dollars
and twenty cents, which Mr.. Cook paid. and took
receipt fr, m Messas Giiard 4 Belts. Plaintiff then
called for the segars at Glrard a Belts when they
gave him order on the defendants to deliver the
tf.t ,la ipt;f hap I'd faL and
sehted TO EverIs Brown, the defendants, who said
they would get them loon as pos5ble-they Thought
by the next day After promising to deliver the
segars several times and upon different occasions,
they finally ascerained that the segars had been in
bond for over a year. and they could not get them
ont Of bond except by expectation and re-importa
ton. Mr.. Brown afterwards said to plaintiff, that If
he could not get the segaIs he would promise the
matter. On the 9TH OF May, 1853, plaintiff finding
that tic could not obtain the segars from the deien.
dant, received back the amount he paid for the
from Girard q Betts-one hundred and thirty niue
dollars and twenty cents. After the purchase by
Mr.. Cook, and before he learned that lie could t
obtain the sePars and before he received back the
purchase money, he had sold by his agent, Mr. Joco,
by sample, one thousand OF the segars to one maj,
aid five hundred to another, at fourteen d lrs Der
thousand; ard fifteen hundred more to several other
persons, at about twelve d liars per thousand; and
had an offer OF nine dollars from one person. aud ten
collars pei thousand from another for the balance OF
The lot On the part Of the plaintiff, there WAS no
evidence introduced Of the market valde OF the Sc
CARS The defendant proved the market value Of tho
SCARS 10 be about dollars per thousand and that
the fegars 10 The tine OF the sale, belonged to Mr..
Vss,tse, residing III Caitbagena. The esirs were
sold ly hectiun OF the defendants. At the vitiois
Ini.vaws which passed bet seen Mr. Cook ald his
broker, blr Joyce ON The one side, and the dele ID
Bbts on theother, ia relation to the delivery Of the
segarS the defendants claimed that tue segars
wtie not their oan, aud never said thing a,o 1t
Mr. Vaeicse. The plaintiff contends that mas.
much Us We Defendants never DISCLOSED 70 nun tno
lame of Mr. VaseIese, they are liable to him la
damages, l.aDy have been proved and t'lat the
of damages should be the difference between
tie nj they actually paid AMI the amo INT they
might have received for tpm The defendants Il iin
that iuosuucb as they we,e not the owners Of the