The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-12-21

CURED BY Of fault the part OF the prepssx
and that there fault the part Of the schooner
Decree for hbslAnts, with reference = conpate ths
ne Ossss s<a~ Navigation Co. at ne sAip Rspesse
and Aev Cavyo-The libel was ed in this TO
salvage copensaton for services rendered to the ship
Revenue By the steamship Washington, owned by the
iued with her cargo at SIS 6oo sailed from Hampton
Roads the 5th of September 1885, bound to Austria
liz. When about Ave days out she encountered = Sc
we're gale, which threw the ship her beam ends,
and to right her the were compelled to cut away
her main and mizen mssts She also Lost her fore
topmast and bboom and her rudder during the gale,
which lasted about ak hours After the gale the crew
proceeded to get up jury masts and temporary rud.
bore away for New York to be repaired. On the
morning Of the 2sth they had made some 400 miles,
and were then about 90 miles from Sandy Hook. The
captain had been sick for several days before About
Din the morning Of the 2Sh they were hailed by the pilot
boat David MITCHELL and agreement was made that
hold and towsd her until about in the afternoon when
the steamship Washington, then bound from Bremen to
New York. offered her assistance to the ship which was
accepted She took hold Of the ship about p. and
the pilot boat then let 60. Tho wind that night blew
from the north and northwest blowing heavily in
squalls The Washington towed the ship till about r
NJ when the hawser parted and the ship having by this
time been t0wed to anchorage sround, TO anchor
The weather was boserous through the night 50 that
night but shs remained by her. and in the morning took
hold Of her again with another hswssr and brought her
late In the afternoon to the city Of New York. having
parted the second hawser also ME Washington was
worth $500, 0O0 She was insured for $500 900, and
had on board cargo valued at 5000 over
two hundred passengers, and ships company
Of one hundred and four. She delayed about
day for which her running expenses are about
ship while taking her in tow, the amount of about
800 and it cost between 500 and $500 to replace the
their libel to recover salvage the owners Of the pilot
boat also came in claiming salvage and made
libelants Held BY the Court, That the service rem
dercd by the Washington . meritorous one, and
must be paid for salvage service that the Revenue
in crippled and disabled condition, and would pro-
badly have been blown of to by the norherly and
westerly Winds If it had been FOR the assistance
the Washington which rescued her from imminent peril
that the Washington jeopardised her insurance by her
deviation and her valuable cargo had been lost by the
means, the owners would have been liable common
carriers for IL and that she exposed to peril
herself by her delay that six thousand collars
sonable compensation for the services she rendered.
Tho plots claim having been settled before the trial.
their libel was dismissed Decree for the lbellauts
therefore, for $1,000, in which Is included the
actual loss and damage sustained by the Washington.
Supreme COurt-Gcneral Term.
Before Hon. Judge Mitchell.
PEAcrIcE--cosrs.
DBc 2o.-Aarks Bard.-The facts In this case
sufficiently appear in the opinion which was delivered
The plaintiff sued E. II. Bard J. Bard, Jr, with Ave
other defendants joint makers of promssory
These two defendants with four of the other defendants
put in answer in which all six denied that the dc.
PENDANTS made the note in question that the defsn
dants were partners and these two defendants also de-
MED all knowledge Of the facts stated in the complaint
At the trial the plaintiff moved to strike out the
Of these two defendants from the complaint and to dis
continue the action rs to them and his motion was
granted with tho addition that he pay bill Of costs
10 those defendants From the latter part Of this
order the plaintiff appeals. 1t matter of course,
his motion were granted that he should pay the cost.
OF the judgment to be entered against him in favor Of
those two defendants. He himself asked 10 discontinue
the action to them he thus asked to separate then
from the other defendants and became subject to the
costs that would follow from that separation II their
joining with the other defendants in making defence
would ordinarily have compelled them to share the fate
Of those defendants-ths plaintiffs motion relieved
them from that position his complaint joint to
all and tho answer followed it, and joint-hs
ton severed those defendants, that his complaint
longer to be deemed joining them with the other
defendants, and must to do Justice b. deemed alse
to have saSered the Of the defendants Also
this not so, s tho permission 10 discontinue
to the two DEFENDANTS was in the discretion Of the
Court and evidently granted only condition that
copied this condsA he would have been nonsuted for
suing partners those whs not partners Judg.
ment should be Affirmed with costs.
DEC. 2o.-Chadbirwe w. Byrne.-The plaintiff alleges
that he kept storage for defendant until the 9th
January 1851 24 bales of hay for which he was to
paid three cents per bale per month for storage and
,hree cents per bale for labor in putting the hay into
he store The defendant alleges that ave cents per bale
be paid not only for putting in the hay
Tor delivering 1t, and that il not delivered By the
p,,1s put y s1oine e % the was 70
keep the hay store long defendant wished There
evidence TO sustain We defendants allegation
and IL So the plaintiff should not for merely
ccvipg the hay than half the price agreed TO be
paid for receiving and deivengtha Is, two and hall
cents instead of Ave cents but the Court allowed three
cents The agreement to keep the hay long as the
defendant wished must have .an il the plaintiff CONT
nued in possession would require very clear and
ambiguous language to bind the plaintiff to keep TIE
hay although he should be svicted from the store
for ayment Of the rent The plaintiff did keep the
hay long he continued In possession Of the store,
and until he was eviced he entitled to storage for
that time The Judge however, directed the verdict for
the whole amount claimed by the painti-that was for
storage and for cents per BALE instead Of
and half cents per bale The only In this was
half cent 1924 H. and interest on that
Tho exception Of the defendant this direo
ton of the Judget to the whole Of tit was too
broad and not pointed enough to draw the attention
the Judge TO this slight error: it cannot therefore,
strictly be sustained. judgment should be affirmed
with COSTS the plaintiff RENTING SIS H. with inter.
est from January 9, 1851.
Supreme Court-Clrcult.