Indiana American., 1855-03-02

fidelity to your interests. The Plain
dH claimed Of defendant seven thou
sand, one teousand Of which was al
balance on special employment as the
General Agent Of the. Company, and
the balence for two per cent on stock
subscriptions solicited by plaintiff to
the capital stock Of the road under res
olution Of the Board Of Directors, al
lowing her agents 2 per cent for all
stock solicited and procured, payable
in stock. The plaintiff offered in ev-
idence Of his said claim an order on
her Treasurer for one thousand dol
lars, and the propositions of various
persons to convey real estate, which
was claimed to have been accepted by
the Board. The defendant made the
following defense:
lsi. That she had no.power by her
charter to offer and pay the two per
cent above specified. and that it was a
fraud upon her stockholders.
cd, That by the literal and strict in
depreciation Of her contract contained
in said resolution, the plaintiff was on
ly entitled to 2 per cent on stock ac-
tually solicited and procured by him
and conveyed to the company. That
a large proportion of the stock claim
ed to have been solicited and procured
by plaintiff was incumbered by
mortgages. DC, and could not be con-
veyed, and that others had refused to
convey, and that defendant had actu-
ally paid to plaintiff 2 per cent. on
more stock than had been solicited and
procured to her, according to the true
intent and meaning of said contract,
which overplus ought to be deducted
out Of the one thousand dollar order
issued to plaintiff. Further, that the
plaintiff while her general Agent and
charged with the care and supervision
Of her real estate, neglected to pay
the taxes on certain tract of land in
Ohio, which was sold and forfeited, and
los to the company, anda that she
was thereby damaged. The defendant
proved by a number of persons who
had given their propositions to plain
tiff, that they did it voluntarily and
without any special solicitation; also,
that large amount of the property
was incsmbered &c., and that the
plaintiff was her general agent char
ged with the care Of her real estate.
will not attempt to give the char
ges of the Court in full. The Court
charged strong, on both sides, making
an angle of abont As degrees. Evil
IDENTIFY in a muss. The Court refused
to charge the Jury that the Q per cent
contract was void, as maintained by
defendant.
The Court strongly leaned to the
construction, the defendant gave to
; her per cent resolution. The Jury
took leap in the dark, and brought
in verdict for plaintiff of 1886, sol
Both parties were keen for a new
trial, which was refused by the Court,
and an appeal taken to Supreme Court
Hatch Il Langdon,. Us. George Hol.
: land. Suit brought upon two billsne.
gotiated by r. Tyncr, for his own use,
upon which George Holland was in.
dorser. Plea Of non est factum by
Holland. Itappears that Holland had
, indorsed the bills in blank, to be nego.
, ciated by Tyner for his use. that the
plaintiff at the time the bills were
d discounted, by them, inserted in each
the percussion clause with the knowl
edge and consent Of Tyner, and the
question was as TO she extent OF the
' authority given, to the holder of q
: blank bill by the indorser, as to the
filing of the bill. 1t was insisted by
defendant that it was not his bill for the
reason that the clause waving yalua
ton and appraisment laws was an un
usal clause, and that Tyner had nc
power, either express or implicit, tt
insert, or consent to the insertion o
the clause in said bills. Another ques
tion arose as to the sufficiency of no
tice oi protest, of one Of the bills. l
appears that the Notary who protested
= one of the bills. made inquiring abou
Hollands residence, and was inform
ed that he lived at Peru Indiana, ant
sent the notice there accordingly
Upon these two points, very inter
esting discussion arose, conducted b,
Spooner, for plaintiff, and Howlan,
y and Ryman for defendant. The ques
# tons involved was purely questions Q
n commercial law, and was very abb
i argued by council. Mr. Spooner ha
= very fine reputation in Indiana as a
It able Lawyer, and deservedly, for h
r certainly is a very supreme man. II
:. is clear and logical in his argument
IS quick perception, sees in a moment a
y the strong points in his case, and fol
IN tifes the weak ones, detects in an II
l. stance every weak point, in his oppc
sr nent. and fearlessly attacks his stron
/, holds, and knows the law and apple
Or it with ease and accuracy. The CouI
l. gave the Jury the charges asked b
he the plaintiff which was in effect [
IN hrinp in n verdict for plaintiff--verd;.