The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-07-08

JuII 1-Wu!taAs r. cogps aeaiaa Henry Q. Taky.-
The aiatf claims damages FOR the wrongful seizure
~ Il
street On the s0h March last he applied to the Of
ss:. Il :. q .sap s
oedeeed BAN q goods from Mr. Carr. Tho nsxt day he
:ga. cesa q he store q that ar@ whsa Mr. Burnett
ordered II. Burnett then rensnbsred that his arm
e @s si s:s sas
Hoss Mr Burnett referred 70 his note book and found
sh.s g nstss e ~ pnl9 there e,ssssa we MARRIED
hs M ssr IL goods made out for which s ssvs his
ndts = sx months andthe goede we're DELIVERED 70 hms
&. for e rsss FROM him Sssn
$1,000 st on 1hs dsy thcs the soods PuseAassd By
dsns ''s e: ss. y tbs
saw sss o. tie goods on the Sidewalk and recognizing
aAa,s goods coming from the store q hs principals, he
q Dc VAN, snd wsi n tbs scs II renewing coat
Ae found In the han the saloon door, when the
9ant19 eooing In FORBADE him taking y away Thsds-
consent 4 ths pisins tSs soo vers m tassa to tie
station house. There The psrsons In sttendanss refused
tslaks then 70 hid (dsfssdants) store Tis the plain
tn Ssssads md caught hold Of the castmans rens The
eaxtmaa slssd rsng and struck At him. when the
eooda IAs dssn1ant had NOT sssn any member Of the
hsnW Csr, Burnett Oldner prior 70 his sszing the
sss ssa .S o. ss S" 2, c 1 d
asndast and were refused; that Carr bumstt Olansr
tdseea ths plaintiff the note thsy had received from
1lelnt6, which he refused TO accept.
Rmina judge The DESCENDANT elaine that thu plain
TN 6Stlined t. goods In question from his prnopals
b fAna coneeang from them ct the time Of the par
chss ~ lnst that he had note protested. There u
no yesencs thst the dssndsnt cvor disclosed bis prn
eipsls b tAs plaintiff The contrary, the proof shows
that IAN former ranssctons had been exclusively
tween the plaintiff and defendant The plaintiff applied
10 purchase goods the Goth Of May, then gave his
name and sddress called again the next day, when the
firm accepted his nos and ths day following delivered
the eeods am ct loss to conceive how marc
eeslsnt Of the fact In party buying goods from A,
that note be had given some ime prur, for goods,
had bess protested vitiates the sale 70 him By Its
true that party may In some way commit - great
fraud b. conccaug facts In utiering untruths but
In order - abrogate contract Of sAe there must be
some procf Of fraudulent conesaLnsnt- There IL
proof a long the note had been protsstedthat any
demand tor payment had been made plaintihtha he
had refused unable TO pay It. But suppose the
plaintiff did wfully conceal this act from ths fm OF
whom h. The defendant was ignorant OF that
fact-ss had seen his principal but upon mere
the promises Of the plaintiff without process and re-
moved gooos from them, and Afterwards ~ force re-
moved them from the possession OF the paintn viewed
in whatsoever light this transactop can be placed, It
can only be considered high handed proceeding-one
that every citizen loving law and order should dscoun
teuance crowd collected about the premises Of
the plaintiff aud the conduct o. the defendant and the
hartman certainly was calculats TO- and bad Il not been
for the interference Of the police probably would hay
reaussd IN breach Of the peace. And nothing in this
which base the charge Of fraud the part Of
the plaintiff and accordingly order judgment in his
favor for the sum Of S377 53-yalung the goods 81
427T 63-with COSTS and Si2 allowance.