The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-02-06

|
Lnp 'ne og1inss Canton -In action to rscovs, San,
sges Tor violating trade mark SNOW tas
tbs tim, The y tee b, ths T. plA
t ano hsr mar and lad ceased TO the vol,
ted The wro ag md ary II th- psintT corssts Ia
- b;s q m.r', A. ra ard i nsses ~ ve.bs
th,t objaot ia N-ct-d by oounterfeitt,g the trad
mark which he sss ~ present or one tnat be for
ms-iy used II is ca ipjury 70 him 10 stder cas-.
Ths credit and Tsput. uoa which saqairsa By hi
care or ek In the ma eufsctare II pG'io Xrtic
speoes o. property Ven The sw 70 ecsnizas and pro
t.cts; sud shso as , II sxendtog lila
uiainr pufehs ssrs Nc aixss some syubl
10 e'snste shs Tie at cl y oi his rasSuAcure he 4
tured by hin 10 whics sh led his psausr symoo o.
tr'de rsrx III: s oierior "a injar Ia reputation
sno even II II " equal I, us own, the sale OF u
| gres far 10 diminish tho tle or his ar Aclo
II witus6s hss 10 6ei csisoa drawn up IN tbs
Ens lish lar guSge win WHOA he 4 bat in1peeey 40
quantc, and upon his sslnipsu ~ "a cou- 10 bis own
tongue through irt@rpYetsr : IL shawni win ths
view Of imIe,irs bs crealey, th =: hs hss no. Any
nuo Of bis knosledge IL is EN- 10 SHOW by the
wnesa tnat be I'D nns understand tne la impors OF Inc
hnguags used IN thl q poitou II TIA what e iaseal
ed 70 csnvsy BY IL fs cnyis9n belief tnst sae
ns,s sSors to by bin weTs tsas fSom oirlams.Aoasl
which hAc TO HE knc~ dgs The vssnsto1
20 t. Tie jury rpr what II worth the esns Al que
jrne Us Watsrd3se ct al - when In yu ssics's art
ire plsins.ais complains -ts special rssss tr
Wort which he faila 70 ve, sni he proves tos 1o
tDe wcss he 5ay recover wnei Tue wors vas ao'sh Il
spttnrB that be whole nstiti eeicge tAa Uur H.
etoIpoInon At tne flne; p.ry'a a9oS9 .Ns .e,sr
5'y, is rot sufficient grsund TO presums saSns tor
Nosk done after tie lAst dAY aewhch he wA' paid
Can respondent rs Gso opScicst-rhe Jn7tfcs eba-gef
tsst II was incumbent upon the PiAtnth 10 esow
that the ds noept had spoE RoTds OF and csnfuttlg
aeouton This, at s6 WA veIy loose sGy OF atssng
ma eeLersi ruie for as .ning whether words
MOI abb OF not which "a tns shsy nuat apute orirs
inyoivns no al turpiude which ths heIdsr might
be prcceeosd agarst by intismeRt. young Miller,
hiii. ~ TINS test is nos whether what Is imputed
wouia SUBJECT be pArty 10 criminal proseoston out
whether ndctsbls offence has sen mputsd nvoging
mora tnrpiiuee or st attheat which is infamous and
disGrceful in g,ac.l enfe, oetrsctug from the cha
rscter Of the offender good morale. (Se
opinions Of Jassee Bronson and Cowen in cised)
Thete raary acts fo which under our statutes
msy bs subject TO q criminal prosecution and pun
fhed by fine, which 10 Eot iavove ral pitads aud
would not be essrded rs eishe. Ds nous or
general sense After his direction TO the jury
the Jus ice then proceeded to say tina. II tie be-
itysa that the ceisoeAtt called tbs plaintiff gosae
= scoundrei and thief, tha. then the plaintiff
entitled to recover The only p:ihst here ths could be-
aconabie that OF " thisf And that dspsoel slto
tt ele sucisrt in the testimony to render II very
doubtful wheth OF 1t Dpoyed whether thing
pis.nth ths ohsrghg for tersices in his bill which
bad rot been dered When the plaintiffs witness,
reply to the question: DID Tbs defendant refer to tbs bill
when he called the Defendant thie answered that he
cid, and that he believed thst he the bthSt slI
the referred to tue bill and he whole Of ths
ceiendnnts testimony teiog to the same efct 1t
CLEARLY the duty The Jasi3e without any request
from the defendant u draw their st entiou to dssac
tcn upon wt!ch the whos OF A,ion dependsdso
tell them that tho word thst though capable OF falo
neus signihc ston neither By defendant
by the bystancers chstging pi .atig
Will, havis 6een guilty of arcsnytnn IN, The verdict
should b. for the cGfcreansnd hs 10 charge to
thu effect when requested vas clearly erroneous
Haffts against S0y.-Tnsre grg nd ths re-
fussi o. the Justice allow the defendaat 10 give the
wtitier sSreeGent in eydsnss Tae complain. wes for
~oIk. lsoor services upon the pAnsus Railroad, by
the PLAINTIFF assisaor, Fsgsn. between the lat OF Fab
ruar, Al the Let OF Augu.i 1s5s-c37. rhe
general denial. Ths psiD ins witness Cosgrovs,
proves that fsgsus Contract with the eefendAnt was
Ilrlly la writing and partly printing sad ths dSf"ndanIs
Fsganthat he had authority from the dsendaot kS
contracts With lAboerB go cut to PsusmE, aad
he eontrse, mIis by Fagan in wsNag; tha the Wit
pesb put Fasans p.pe IL II ~ bis consen aud thstit
tia 60 by the cetans In @ci like tbls fer
work ard labor proof OF tho existence f written
tract axes 1t CD aa Tbs pl,irtiH 20 pr1dpce 1t
OF account To- Its pros aet Cd Lsdas Seymour
"a WeId. 6o) for he Cannot recaver upon implied
| proniss II there exp c3ntrket IL, WAS not
reqxirsd in this prodace it, It vas
thowa 20 have been rst.iusd and filed BIZ tht de-
f.IGADts age Mt Shaw. But he d ndsnt hGvsg on red
10 produce it. il WAS in evidence and he should
hAsebeen permitted 70 prove It, The Jastos hs
return ihst he deemed it iaadmsbls under the plsad
inps There was nothing Ia ths plesoiDg to pevent 1t
was part OF tbs plaintiffs case. Ths ompisint
Is silent AZ to whsther tn, paintGs cl.iaa Is
founded upon IN imp Piled express contrast,
ard the answer is G. eerial Of any contract at all
Under summary complaint lls this, it MAJ ersd not
tif could undsr either Hs was bound to prove
contract; and II appssied that thu patish had put their
Of what that asr emsnt wal. aud the deendsnt was e.
titled to the benz h OF It, II urged by the respondent
thAt tpsEmuch IL proved that Fagan could nlt
write, Ard he xituess Shaw who signed Fsysnd
to ihc trct could whs.hsr il rsSi
o'er er explained TO him, It vas cot binding upon
FsgSn aud therefore moi admissible eyeencs OF the
agreement between bin and the defepdant Tbs insbl
~ Of this witness 10 remember wh.ther 1t
sxpAired to Fsgsa, ia wholly in1nstersl lie
tbA, he ssn,c Fagsns oy his consent sud IL IL
be presu ned that kno the nature OF that TO
which he sssepts by directing MS name TO be signed to It.
audif he does not he is 'ess boled unless an
advantage tsk-n of his ignorance BY fraud prac
ticed upon him. Nothing OF the kind appeared mere.
Dn hat Fac khat IA
could not read and there evidence that 1t the
general prsctce OF the office where III. contract
unable TO rad Tbs evidence abundsntly SUI
fsi,nt ene tho defendant to SHOW by ais wltn,ss
that the contract be prcdu oed the sxscut,d by
Fsgan which was prev sntoa from doing by s -uuns
ofihs Justice that was nIdmisssbe upisr hs plead
ines.
Aotdhdn ~ Story A cla'n for dsn nagss for breach
Of contract IL assgnAbe In recent case, Parsons
Woodward New Jersey, 1885, It was held that contract
to deliver aut 7orlze
the igDes 10 maintain sction In ths OF this
nssguor Slain thus arising from breass Of contract
is chose in action. Burrirs Law Die, 2la lCaittyo
Gcnl Practice o. and note And tha. choae 10 sc.ioo
is Assiynsbls has been repeatedly held Wheeler u
,s Grant II Mass. o. 15 note .''p h.s,msn % wrss.
Pick, t16 Wetch ts handsvilis, Winston, 235.
conmy.ys rs ve,,., ! Pet l9s And tbs only rsstsio.
had to be brought in the Of the ass3u1r Tails
removed by the previsiona Of he Code ~hoh rsqairss
sveiy acti be brcuxht Ia the OF tks party
In ipt.res provision declared To applsA biz
to or rather not TO sptnorzs ths assign neat II
thing In ,iisn net arising ont OF contrast As ths
Law thersfors nov ,tancs claim for bresoh Of coz
tract ia sssgDsble and the action for tho rscovefy az
eamsees RAY De brought 10 shs nsms oi ~ well ~ for
,he benefit q the assignee. Monabsn proved thu, he
discharged BY the c.fssiSnIs sz,nt when tho oo
upon Which be ws engaged Saa ftisaid the ag Mt ts
log him 'lat he did no. rsrt any men, and 70 20
snd cok for job. Dalton proved that thors re-
futa to wot, revolt the csrpscters and that
he discharged him R consequence ot H. That,s bs says
be communicated to he general agent 1t Mary By his
iog dn ch,rxog nm aud that his iatsaon
haa lrl or ar fdur / ka hrd bfen