The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-12-16
Supreme Court.

Before Hon. Judge Cerke.
DEc. 15.-Pringle Chambrs.--The last two papers
introduced in confirmation Of the suciency Of the
notice. that Jacob Prnge considered the agreement
note which this action brought to have been
cancelled by the notice. pursuant to the terms Of tho
first agreement.
l. The plaintiffs counsel objected to the introduction
of the paper on ground that 1t apparent the
face Of the paper that it had been altered since it
executed and delivered. The Judge at the trial
TO the time when the alteration was The counsel
certainly demanded more By this objection than have
oeed IN any books Of modern authority with tns OK
written by Mr. Warren, in which Lord Wilmington in
lie fictitious case of ssnoe the Demise Of Ttmouso
gainst oter Subscribed refusing to receive deed
in evidence it had in material part
of III and the real defendant, Aubrey lost ten thou
sand year and his position In society. BY this OBJ
lection the counsel did not either in the case Of Doe
Joler, of Pringle Chambers, ask the Court
in some to explain account for the al
teratop but that the question should not to the jury
at ALL Where there erasures or interlneatons,
instrument il becomes question Of fact for the jury
whether they made before after execution and
decision " that viii IN great
depend upon the circumstances Of each individual
case" and it is sautary rule which think courts
generally disposed to adopt though yet not with
perfect unanmit that where the alteration appears to
be suspicious Ms face and is not duly noted the
lies with the party who claims that the alteration
genuine But nothing of this kind required by the
plaintiffs counsel Both in his objection to the admis
sbty Of the instrument 10 the rst instance and his
request how the Judge should charge the jury he in
sisted that the sufciency we'll the admissibity
Of the instrument exclusively fer the Court The
Judge left 1t with the TO when the alteration
made and stated to them, it made after the
deliver, it could have effect THIS ruling per-
with the decision of Lord Widdrngton the important
occasion to which have referred, In n described
by who is not only celebrated writer of many
interesting Gctons hut the author useful
elementary legal works.
2. Was the defendant obliged to show that the bust
of manufacturing and vending the machine
profitable in fact that the to do so lay upon him.
and that he must show it before he could claim the bene
M Of that part of the agreement providing for giving the
notice and resembling the contract:
The Court charged the jury that the written notice
was sent as testified q the witness that annui.d tho
proof the part of the plaintiffs showing that the bust
ness was profitable, this correct The agreement
facture profitable not and this safe for all
parties for it be taken for granted that the defend
no' psn. r INV. b nc "a
show that the statement in the notice was untrue;
but he gave evidence the subject and this jury
have nothing TO do but TO decide upon the sucisncy
Of the notice itself, corroberated by exhibits No.
and No 4, both Of which, have already intimated
introduced for this purpose. They intro
duced rather admissions than agreements The
paper exhibit No. d, dated July 5, 1850 IL =
paper with which the defendant has directly nothing
to do. 1t certainly does not amount 70 an agree
meDt between him and Jacob Pringe; but that Is no
reason why certain statement in it is not eaectnaI
interest," used as evidence of the defendant.
g. Is the evidence offered by the plaintiff had been ad-
mitted by the Coult 1t m ght have shown that the de-
fendant manufactured the machine after he sent the
office chnoeng the agreement but this could have
fleet in determining whether the agreement was ac-
usliy cancelled not. II could have no tendency to
show whether the manufacture profitable unpro-
table at the tme the notice sent Neither couk It
have shown waiver there could be no waiver 10 the
proper Of the term after the notice and the
guiescerce Of tho plaintiff proved here could only b.
the agreement and IL this restored the par
In heir orig IL shoul hA
been proved. No offer made to prove anything OF
the hind and the Court properly refused TO reoeve the
the testimony.
The judgment should be affirmed with COSTS
SUPREME COURT--cIRCUIT.
Dc. 15.-Acioa for Sidader-Ddniel Buhler rs JaAn
Went,corfh.-fhs continued to day when tao
defence was PR led with Witnesses were cacd 70
testify to the justification Of the alleged Islander Ad-
journed.
Court OF General Sessions.
Before Hon. Recorder THOU
Drc. 16.--Cruelty to Anisots lin the OF Town
send Haght, indicted for tearing out the tongue q
his own horse reported in yesterdays HERALp) tho
Burliory in tie First Degree George MaIoy very
young 10y indicted for burgaronsly entering the
street, the 2d If December, instant The prisoner
found in the owners cellar the night tion;
but g. s shsrse s"s
accepted plea VI attempt at petit larceny senseocs
Wecai voinoGeorse OFT WINS put upon his trial foe
twice attempting 10 vote the 9Th Of November last
having previously deposited his ballot These facts
proved BY the inspector Of elections Of tue Fourth dis
voter had right 10 deposit his ballots for different on
GERS AZ different times this pursued ~
the PRISONER and tuat at least he should receive the
benefit OF tbis presumption OF innocence Verdict Of
guilty senteDced TO the pententiap for six months,
There being no other cases ready for trial. the Court
then adjourned until Monday.