The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-02-27
Supporter Ceurt-0eneEa a Tsrn.
Bsltrs Hon. Judges Duss, Bos xerth, ana sossen.


Bekrs Hon. judges Duss, Bos SIsrth, and saosssn.
LONG PENDING SUIT AG AlNsr ran AsroRa
fm 25.-Samael @. 0gten Adhsisis:ra,sr Of Nsek.oas
g. Ogden, deceased. rs. WAiass H. Assor and ts Erecu
Of John jacob Asor deocaed.-rhis applics
ton Il wn B. Aston ssr the correction and nendment
of the dszee here.ose made by tho Superior Court in
this 1t appears fYsm tho printed ease whsch
cusss several bound volumes thsei the year 1910 John
jacob Aston entered into agreement OF copstnerhp
With Nicholas g. Ogden to carry extensive Canton
business the capital for which to b furnished BY
Mr.. Aston In New York, whilst Mr. ogden to reside
Canton The proportion Of interest ffthA for
ascounu of Mr. Aas0Y and one 9Th for account Of Mr.
Ogden In ISIS William B. Aston was sssociated with
his father the 6rn II John Jacob Aston Son,
and M Ogden Was notned Of the change, has interest
continuity the before. The business
Ars embracing eighteen India voyages and including
cost several vessels which belonged the joint
and nsc been expressly s the
out having received, - alleged, any acsounts from
hessrs AstOr BY which the profits losses Of
oopartnsrship could mp that date be ascertaned.
In 1874 letters Of administration his estate we're
granted by the Surrogate OF New York to Mary G .
Ogden, sister Of the deceased and o George Ehnin-
Son rendered 10 these administrators accounts II the
Of the copartneship, by which i made to
partners on the 3lst July 1885, In the Of go 1s
Consequently ~ he haa no other properly his estate
son % %hsn The
G. Ogden. who il only brother OF Nicholas G. Ogden,
and ct the period alluded to resident of Bordeaux
Of New York having to believe that the accounts
rencered by the TO the administrators Of his
estate were ,h making
least could be done nom the accounts rendered
by the deendsnts Application was made to the Surro
Ogden and George Ennneer revoked. On the ed o.
JaDuAry, 1871 new letters of administration, de ois non
alter on both the jacob Aor ana
william B. AstOr-produced 10 each his aushoiiy
admin proposed an ameabe investigation Of the
that he might permitted to inspect the books and
accounts in their possession, to all of which, is
alleged by the c0mplainants, peremptory negative
was given by both parties. Subsequent inyos.
tgaion having convinced TIE complainant that the
which haa been rendered by the Messr Asor
acceptance Of the term the present bill of complaints
ed before The Chancellor OF this State the month
Of January, 1872 demanding redress in the Court OF
Chancery. demurrer to this bill nterposed by the
defendants, who alleged iha. il al that claimed
since their accounts had rendered. all such claims
then efectualy barred by the statute OF limitations
The demurrer argued before Vice Chancellor MCoun,
ard tary in 1S43 his decision was given, by wncn the
was dismissed and the detencants ordered
Issue joined, and in 1874 examination o.
witnesses was commenced before FIX aminer 10 Chan
cery which continued the month Of June, 1847
when the placed the calendar Of the Court
OF Chancery Tor trial. Tho court having shortly after
wards ceased to exist IT transferred to the Su
pleme Court, whence II was ain transferred to the
Superior Court OF this city. In 1850 the cause finally
cane On fcr tll3l at the Ueccmoer term OF that
court, when il was argued before the honorable
Judges Duer and Mason, BY George Wood and Charles
OCOnor tie part Of the complainant, and by Danie
Lord and Benjamin Butler on the part VI the defend
ants who sgain interpreted their former plea OF the
1ute of limitations their main defence. decree
made by the above named JUDGES, wher n
q IL Cations made by the complainant confirmed
and the accounts formerly renaeed by The ceendants
ordered to be opened reformed resa,ed under
the direction of W. BOnney, who appointed
referee and bek whom the books vouchers docu
ments OF either party, relating TO the copartnership
miI aIy discussions the Office Of The referee in Wall
street, meeting Of the referees held the 10th of
November, 1852, at the Office OF W. B. Astor in
street, the books of both parties produced ana
placed The control OF the referee At this time
sgleed between B. Asor and the complainant that
the latter should be authorized 10 make up
the provision Ct the Decree WI the assistance and
Ger the immee late supervision OF Philip kissam the
that If points difference should between them
the accounts should nevertheless be continued T.
before he for Sa Decision Under h arranse
the entire accounts of the copartnershp
up and ceve cd to the defendants in March, 1884,
bibitipg balance in favor OF the estate OF Nicholas
Ogden Of $278 1876 ST. including 10th OF No
vtnber, 1859. Mr.. Nissan subsequently demurred TO
many Of the items contained the accounts in conse
ouel CO Of which meeting Of the reference was called 81
me goth o! May 1885, for the purpose OF submitting the
whole matter at issue to the decision of the referee
this meeting both parties together with their respective
council present but instead of proceeding with the
tho defendants counsel asked for acjourI
NeDL WniCn granted the refere0
On the 18th Of june 1855 application was made b,
Wusm b. Aston the Judges the Superior Court for
The correction and amendment If the decree ade in this
than thu years previously stay Of pro
eedngs before the ree, ordered by court anil
cr several djourDments, the hearing Of this sppca
ien was set down ior TO- when council proceeded to
briet absJ act.
On this Wednesday, morning. the argument of eoun-
sci will be commenced Tor the settlement OF tle decrso
superior Court-Part second.
Before Hon Judge Sloason.
GREAT MERCANTILE SUIT.
lER. 9-Wm. Hielmaas Marshall 0. Roberts.-lhis i
action to about otoo which plaintiff alleges
have lost in the sale Of the steamboat Columbus through
Withholding Of Information by the
fendan The plaintiff sned six twenteths of the Coum
bus, which employed in trading and carryieg par
sengers on the Pacific Ocean. The defendant agep
ioI her and, tits alleged withheld from PLAINTIFF
ect stat enr OF her earnings which induced the
plaintiff to part with interest in her for 800 O00
.ie ably below its it being alleged that George
aw others, who assumed to be OF the
bad, piier to the plaintiff having parted with his share o.
her agreed TO sell her for s120, co.,
The has occupied the Court two weeks. Tho
testimony, oral and documentary, was yoluminous
mi 9 Judge Slossop granted the notion
After reviewing the case NJ very great Icing b, he said
The evidence ss 1t stands, does not in my judg
jury on the essential points Of misrepresentation
ceaimcnt on ,he part OF the dcendaot giving
TO the pIatntiH the fuil bcneht OF that stand
ard Of obligation in respect TO disclosure
ing from the 6duciary relation, which wonld be
recognized in court Of equity; even if this
So does show the plaintiff TO have in that
ion OF sno-a and want ofopportunity and o.
Investigation on his own part which would make the i'm
position practised upon him, if had pracssei
wholly the fault OF the other, il show
that in fact the plaintiff was deceived, that he
closed his bargain in actual ignorance Of all thar
himself knew OF the Of the accounts
and of the actual existence Of the contract with the
Steamship Company Tor the transfer Of the ship say
tive Of these propositions, and it il only by the aid OF
which cannot be entertained in i'm
Al law that such affirmative can said to
have been made out. TN the contrary the evidence
does anirmativcly establish that the defendant
possessed Of great deal Of information in respect to
the accounts and that he In actual controversy
and dispute with the defendant in respect their cond
ton and In respect to the sale of the vessel to the
ship Company it does establish airmavey that he had
some inormatcn that he was put directly upon inquiry