The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-01-14


WaFsam LeConR and y. Wesden 70. Minon kteh.H -
Ths motion Is for discovery Of paper sitnx and
entries in se paints books Of account to enable the
defendant to answer As 10 the paper writing Of which
discovery Is sought the aiavit OF tho plant is posi-
tive that he now has not had the paper re-
ferred to- IA TO ths entries In the books no necessity
Ia shown for the discovery. The action IL for work Ia
Dor an, materials. The defendant certainly know.
whether be employed the paiktu and on what term.
and whether the work has been performed so that he
can preface an answer TO the plaintiffs cain, without
discovery OF evidence necessary 10 make out hs defence
The defendant does not eyea show that any auch nc
counts are In the books but merely that they purpOrt
contain certain charges u the plaintiI for the
aool sor',ees 70 warrant discovery " this aind u
specific book, that IL material to ths d.endan u
have the discovery and he ali ua state the why
II was no material, aud that the defendant could
well without wlth tho information. No
Of these things Is testified in these papora The
motion for discovery IL allowed except for some
particular paper account. which the moving party
can Identity aud describe and II be sanction
ed that party may, ON mere statement that his OPP
ponent has books purportlng TO contain entries
Of which he knows nothing obtain an order for tho
summation oil his adyersarys books papers 10 the hopa
mat he may hnd something 20 aid him in hs defence.
Motion denied, with $40 cos's.
George Calm us. Fred H. Grot,--This action VA,
brought TO for an attorney and for
commissions charged for eectng purchases Of real es
tate on Staten Island. The jury found verdict for the
plaintiff for ssoo which the defendant moves 10 set
aside. The lrst objection is the admission u to,ti
mony to explain eeept which was offered In evidosce
TO prove certain admissions OF tho plaintiff Without
expressing any opinion to the MISS bty Of sueh
testimony IL Is sufficient to say that such
taken the trial IL IL had been tn A
might have been withdrawn or exclude ani for want
Of such becton the Defendant be eonsderei as
asserting TO its admission. Tho second obje,ton is
that the verdict Il against the weight 81 evidence
think that this objeotoa is not vol founied There
were no doubt services rendered by tho PLAINTIFF aud his
partner for the defendant They dill while acting FOR
the defendant edEt tho purchase Of aarm ON staten
Island at price 81 900 lsss than the deendant author
ized them 10 osf for IT, and With that clearly
On, Is hardly DO said that thorc not sui:
evidence Go sustain the dnding whether or not
verdict was against law Is involved Ia tho third obles.
tion which this motion Is founded, via. That the
verdict IL against the charge Of the Judgs Upon the
trial. appeared that the pla ntn had received from
Of the farm $780, which in hrs receipt therefor lie
states 10 be In full ~ all demands the sale
and conveyance Of the farm Of Connor. II also APP
pears In evidence that Of the owners OF the
farm offered sum Of $1,000 10 any who would
procure purchaser OF the farm at $40 050 bat o,r
was made for any smaller sum. The person testI
fed that Cathn not the agent for selling his
knowledge; that he acted for himself and employed
body 70 act for him in the aoxouaton; that C,tln
acted for Grotc and not for himself The Jury wera
instrncted that II Catln the agent Of Conner in
enecting tho sale, and received from hi
TINT he not entitled ta any from the defendant
That thu pc could al the same time A., AZ
agent for buyer and seller and receive compensi loo
from both but the mere receipt OF a gratnitY from
Conner for finding him purchaser 20 what Catln had
legal claim, would not deprive nm OF right a. com
pensation from tho defendant unless tho Jury found
that Cntln was acting a. tho agent ~ Corner Ia
the barsain. Under these Instructions the n
the agency OF Catln we're submitted 20 the Jury. tt
think that submission proper and th,t the ques
uons were Tor Jury TO pas upon There evidence
from which the jury might conclude that no such
agency existed, and II not then the plaintiff entitled
to compensation for his services The receipt not
OF tsat conclusive noture as 10 prevent the subnsson
OF the question To the jury, and II not then their
diet ought not TO b. act aside, tse Court the
trial might have thought ot1crwise. Whatsvsr dou BIT
may entertain upon the fActs feel bound BY tho nnd
ings Of the jury and do not feel warranted ia ordering
trial. Motion for n new trial denied.