The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-02-02
Supreme Court.

Fm l.-Chas s. Stanton ps Robert r Cbnkey This
tried in the Circuit Court before the judge with
legal inversion Of goods The following Is the decision
rendered BY the Judge this morning.
The complaint alleges that about the 21st Of May
1851 the defendant purchased Of the plilhR dry goods
80 OF the value Of S67s 64 that the said dry goods
BY the defendant upon the exp'e condition
no ss
.ad purchase eItorsed BY Augusta, Conhe brother Of
the said defendant By some other responsible person.
goods should be Immediately shipped BY the plaintiff 10
the residence Of the defendant, with the distinct
s shs ist !. y the
until raid note incorssd given The title and
property In said gooes sAoud b. and rsmAin with the
plaintiff; that in ascortanos with the agreement tho
goods were sent and were received BY the defendant
Plaintiff demanded the note 30 endorsed. Defendant
neglected refused TO give it, and still refuses to deliver
the pots to pay for the goods in Any other
Defendant has not in manner paid for said goods
any part thereof but has wranguy converted the
and By .sSnDs residue for p. Of
dite TO thsdamase Of the PLAINTIFF Of S67s 81 for
which sum- With inte rest from the 2lst OF Nay 1851
besides costs, plaintiff demands judgment Toe al.
Of the defendant admits the purchase and the
amount and that he has received he goocs AMI has
paid for them He denies that the It'll. Of tbs gods
VAS to remain in the plaintiff dsnie, the state nents
ade BY the plaintiff tending to hew that title Of goods
received ia Plaintiffs; states facts showisg that the
credit Of six months admits he sold his goods and
dsnies he converted plaintiffs goods to his Plain
tHs reply denies the statements made In defendants
Reduce there psadings TO their simple legal
Ing Ard ELECT and they are ~ follows uz.-Ths plata
TIL cha ges the defendant with having wronsfully
ed the property Of the pAiu III to the Defendants
The ee'-noanr denies the charge Tners is proof
.her that the plaintiff owned tbs property, or that
tbs defendant vronsully converted T. 10 sostsin
this action both these facts must be established
TIE plsntiR introduced provisional order In this case
made by the Special Term on the 27th Of March, 1884,
under ubtivisiop OF section 244 Of the C,de Direct
Of s678 g. with interest fro the Sst day q May
ISL being ,he OF the ind. BITE admitted In
tine TO BE- Cue by the defendant to the plain
for the goods mentioned In the plaintiffs complaint ~
order improve granted by the sp' eia Term be-
cause The provfsopal order IL applicable only when
the eeferdsnts admits part Of the plaintiffs olai
When the whole Of the claim 10 admitted there should
~bos smount no. merely for part. This is an 40.
ton for tort for rover and and the claim
10 il IL for damages for uoh trovcr and oonveron The
this does not admit any part OF this claim
the trover and csnveron and all liability in that action
The facts stated In the defendants answer admitting
indebted to the plaintiff upon contract were essen
ta facts TO show that the property belonged to the de
fendsn nj and not 10 the plaintiff and therefore
NAL Of the plaintiffs claim In that suit instead OF
m The provisional order IL not evidences this cause
The whole difficulty In this originated in an Ell ,rt
OF the plaintiff to convert simple contract claim ias
fraud that they could extort payment from the dc
PENDANT or his frisncs by obtaining the power TO impr
lent attempts to vioats the humane AID jast
Of the i'm prisonment act couts should b Waterfall
In this had the plaintiff instituted his suit upon
the contract he could have taken his judgment upon
October 1851. Judgment In favor OF the painan up IN
this record would authorss ths imprison meat the
PENDANT There should Be judgnsut tor the osfsnoans
dismissing the complaint with oosn