The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-02-01
Marine Court.
Before Hon. j Judge Mccarthy.
SLIT EnR PLarffntr NJ o uoAnn


JAN. u = William IT, Wilson doains IIIliam A
SeeieyThis action brought BY the plaintiff who Is
the assignee Of Andrew Powell, to recover 1860, the
value of weeks board and extras furnished the
defendant and his adopted daughter, Miss Matilda cls
rendon formerly actress at the Park theatre at the
house Of Mr. Powell at No. 1856 West Thirsth II rect
commencing the 9th OF November last. number OF
witnesses examined the part OF the plaintiff who
alleged the occupation by defendant Of three
the second door, and two parlors the FIRST door OF
the house in question. There dispute as to the
occupancy OF the the second floor but the
elusive Of the lower parlors denied by the
fendan The plaintiffs witnesses also testified that the
table by the assgnor would favorsby compare with
those Of the st. Nicholas and Metropolitan or those OF
any other hotel in the country II was also shown by
receipts that the value OF such and board would
reasonably be fIom S15 10 $50 per week The de.
~fendant denied the value Of the services, aud set
up that ne and his adopted daughter mad been
enticed away from place where they hal previously
boarded through the opportunities Of the assignor,
Powell and his wife, and that they tnen paying
much less price for equal superior sccommo ations
that Mrs. Powell had declared that pr object
that she desired 20 act mother the adopted dAagh
ter Of the defendant for whom she had great regard
snd that her society the main nducemsnt Of Mrs
in asking her 10 remove. The defendant further set
out as an Offset order for 500 which had been yyen
on him oy hr Powell in favor Of ona Bancroft, which
the defendant agreed TO pay H. upon the settlement 81
bis account with the assignor ne should be found
much indebted.
held by the defendant and the earnest and Jealous
with which the cause defended have given the
various questions involved than an ordinary
animation and after such sxauinst on have arrived
al the following conclu.ions:-l. hnd, aa q aues-
ton OF fact that the the story wer.
cupied by defendant and his daughter aud further
find question Of fact that the various ecc.ntrctes
Of conduct OF the yeung lady developed by the tssi
mony occasonei more than ordinary trouble and IN.
convenience 10 the proprietor Of the house for which
they entitled 70 be recompenssd. ! ind asa au.s
ton OF law that the $50 Offset act up By tie
cansot be allowed 70 him, acceptance such a. IA
required by Law 20 bind him 20 pay relieve the as
signor from paying the sane should suit be brought
against him that amount u (the alleged ae
ceptance being contrary 20 the statute of frauds The
only remaining question for To upon 10 th. value
OF the board which Ia testified To BY several
and competent witnesses, the part Of plaintiff 70 be
from t75 70 $50 per week and the farther testimony
that such accommodations and such entertainment
could not be obtained at hr.t class hotel Less than
$3.50 per week (no direct testimony having been gfyen
BY the defendant) bat there IL question as 70
whether the defendant had the exclusive use OF occu
patton Of the lower suite % all the time he wa
there, will allow the plaintiff recover a. and after
the rate Of $50 per week shall disa0w all the ertras
charged except the fourth and hth items In the bill OF
particulars, and from which will deduct 81 and wil
allow tl the fourteenth item, making in the Aga
gate s42s So from which Il 70 be deducted credit ~
t120 leaving balance Of SOS 80 for whach anoun
render jadgment for plaintiff, nth ti2 aliovso
and costs