New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-08-13
LAW LvIELLLGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-AUG. l1-sPEeiAL Term
Before Judge woodruff
INTERESTING DECISIONS
CLAIM FOR WHARFAGE OF OYSTER BARGE.
n..ta t..,... d. - Rssi. pnckunan

CLAIM TOR WHARFAGE OF OYSTER BARGE.
David Jaques sgt Elisha Ruckman.
Plaintiff MIR. j., was lessee of piers and bulkheads
on the North River, including the bukhead between,
xe believe, Dey and Liberty SITS. Mr.. Ruckman owned
float, OF barge for the keeping and sale OF oysters,
which with nine others, occupied the Slip head on at
The bulkhead having plank from the latter TO the
bow Of the barge, which barge had remained IN Its
then position, fastened TO the wharf, for several years
Mr. Jaques sued to recover full wharfage for SAID
barge at fifty cents per day, agreeaby to statute and
brought suit TO recover his claim the items for the
Wharfage of said barge alone being sls2. Mr. Ruck-
man set up I'm defence that previous TO le47 the own
ers Of the barces hired directly from the Corporation
ard divided the expense Of wharfage between them,
making it SEQ per yeareach; that MIR Jaques promised
the of the bar9es that If they would not COM
pete with his getting lease that they should have the
wharfage at the rate as they paid the Corporation,
which rate they paid him the next year the subsequent
one they submitted to something more, and the third
he charged full price, a. bow sued Tor and contested
Mr. Ruckman set up various points OF defence az
shove and others but admitted that Sl65 81 due
by him 10 Mr. Jaques The Jury gave small YER
Dict and motion is made for new trial
fhe Court considers that the testimony az to the
psrol agreement carried out A. Il was afterwards was
properly admitted in evidence; aud that the charge
of the Judge on the trial that the terms confined IN
fore until notice should be given 70 The contrary, Wa
correct. Tho plaintiff, however, was entitled to toe
amount admitted 10 be due by the answer. New trinl
granted costs 10 abide event. unless the defendant a.
low the Judgment TO be entered for Sl65 81, with m
terest tom January, ls5l IN which case new trial de-
Mod OlffkS BY NolNNEls
The new trial in the above case was asked for partly
an the ground that the Judge at the trial refused after
he had charged the Jury TO permit counsel to offer new
,,o,osi,iops for the consideration Of the Jury. The
following is the abstract Of the decision OF Judge
Woodruff on the case, prepared by himselt
WoOpRUFF J.--Mhether, after counsel nave sum
med mn their case 10 the Court and Jury and have
had full opportunity TO present all their points OF law
and arguts nts upon the evidence as fully as they oe-
-ire aud tho udge has theneuPon changed the jury
COM sci msy further present request for special a.
Yeeons and require such propositions as has inseny
or professional skill may desire, TO be charged As
matter rcstug in the discretion of the Court II cannot
he insisted upon az q right In that stage OF the tr'a
cit ia practice liable 10 great abuse-tengiiis 70
embarrass the orderly conduct of the ulal-lkefy 70
confuse The minds OF the jury creating danger OF error
through the adoption Of views of the law which ocnno
in hat stage of the proceedings DO carefully eonsdered
and = liable TO work injustice 20 the other party.
II s for the Judge IN that stage OF the tria
20 fe 70 entertain special requests then for the iirs
time ubmilted.
"When the Jury, under the direction of the Court,
have adopted rule for computing the amount Of the
recovery which produces result Ices than the dsend
ant has BY not denying ~ implicitly admitted IN his
nns.er to be due, the Court may on motion by the
naintiff for tsl, permit the defendant to stpu
lie 20 allow Judgment for the sum 70 admitted aud
o, such stipuation deny tho motion, although the
rsiDif had duly excepted 10 the direction ofbe Court
70 this respect"