The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-28
Superior COurt-Genernl Term.

Present-Chef Justice Oakley and Hon. Judges Duer,
Bosworth and Slosson
| MAY 27.-Sumuel 7alnadge against Richard Up
.john.-Appeal dismissed with costs.
Herman Watson against Jerolemo Donadi.-Ap-
peal sustained, without costs to either party.
George r. IdlnidA Us. Henry L. Frdnklin.-This
up to test the decision in the Court below
where the plaintiffs complaint was dismi ssed. The
defendant purchased lots at a SALE and afterwards
refused to take them as they resold at lower
price, and the action was brought to recover the
difference. On the part of the defendant it was set
up and contended that the memorandum describing
the lots, which was exhibited at the time of sale,
too uncertain in its description OF the location
Of the lots and it was on this argument that the
Court below guarded in its decision. The Cour.
above, III its judgment maintained the decision O..
the Court below, and gave judgment for the de
PENDANT.
Francis B. OComor Us. Charles Sandfmd.-
This case came up on appeal. The plaintiff owned
house in Hamilton street, and had contracted with
| tie defendant, who is mason, to build, and the
suit was brought for breach of the contract. By
its terms the builder bound himself to lay the base
of the wall certain number of feet below the
face Of the EARTH The amount OF the contract was
paid but two years. When the owner OF the adjoining
lot Logan to build and 10 excavate for foundation,
il was found that the contract had not been com
pleted. In the Court below verdict was given for
the plaintiff, and this Court gave judgment affirm
ing that verdict.
OBTAINING GOODS UNDER FALSE PRErENCEs.
John III. Reyser against U'iuidni II. Harbeck,
John III. Harbeck, Sdni. Ward, Rodmdn NJ. Price,
and Louis Deitz.-This was an action to rec
$4,000, the value of goods purchased from the plan-
tiff under alleged false prctences. II appears that
in April, 1850, person named Peas applied to pur-
chase from Keyser quantity Of hardware for Cali
fornia and said that he wanted it fer wealthy
house in Wall street, who did not wish to be known
as trading with California, and that he would pay
for it in cash the goods were put on board
the vessel. He said that Ward and Price were
his principals. On this representation some OF the
goods were put board vessel for California; but
before all the goodswere shipped keyser applied to
Peas for the money, and he said that his principals
(Ward and Price) would not pay for them until they
received the ships receipt for all the goods keyer
continued to deliver the goods, and Peas took re-
cepts for them from the captain of the vessel but did
not pay the money to plaintiff, who then made app
cation to Ward and Price, who, it appeared, had
also been deceived. Peas had asked them to ad
vance money on goods for California, and they
agreed to advance fifty per cent, and took the
cepts he got for the goods, supposing that he was
the owner of them and on those receipts they got
the bill of ladng from the master Of the ship. The
plaintiff then applied to them for the goods, and
being paid their advances. demand was thu I
made for the goods by the plaintiff, but the mast
of the vessel would not give them without gettir !;
back the bills of lading.
Judge Bosworth delivered an elaborate opinion
in this case, of which the following is q brief alb
stract =" The question argued at the general tern
by the counsel of all the parties as being the princ
pal one arising in the cause, is this Can party
who has been fTaudulently induced to sell and de-
liver goods by means of false pretences, indctable
under the Revised Statutes, reclaim them from D.
who has bona fde bought and obtained possession
of them from the fraudulent vcndeeg The plain
tiff counsel insists that when party is deprived
Of his goods by acts amounting to felony at com.
mon law, his title cannot be Invested by sale to
| bona fde purchaser. This is not denied. But he
also insists that the Revised Statutes have made the
obtaining of goods by false pretences felony, and
that it follows that the general rules of law apn
cable to the rights of an owner of property felonols
ly taken, applicable with equal force to property
taken from him by false pretences, indictable by the
Revised Statutes. The defendants concede that
party who has been deprived of his property by acts
amounting to felony at common law may reclaim
from the felon. But they insist, that when the
owner has delivered them TO third person, intend
ing at the TIME Of the delivery to part with
his title to such person, though he may have been
induced TO deliver them with such intent,
by fraud false pre.ences, he cannot reclaim them
| from one who may have bona fde bought them from
the person TO whom they were SO delivered.
think the definition of the term felony"
pose Of giving it definite meaning when found in
statutory law and without any design of affecting
by u the rights or liabilities Of third persons result
ing from ordinary and bona de transactions between
them and any one who may have obtained the pro-
pery to which the transactions relate by acts which
were not felony at common law, but which, by the
Revised Statutes, may probably be an offence coming
within the definition Of felony. From
the manner in which the cause was submitted TO the
jury, il is quite evident that the counsel for the
plaintiff did not suppose that there was any evidence
on which he could anticipate verdict, that the de-
PENDANTS, Ward and Price, did not advance in good
faith that there was any use TO have the question
submitted. We do not think that the evidence dig
closes knowledge their part of any facts or cir
oumstances which make IL proper to grant a new
trial for the purpose OF having that question sub.
mitted. The verdict being subject TO the opinion Of
the court upon the questions of law arising upon the
evidence, and that being OF a character TO justify
specific instructions to the jury upon all the gues-
ions OF fact except the one specially found and the
liberty being reserved to the court TO order non
suit ard that deposition, being just one according
10 The case presented TO us, judgment Of nonsait