New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-01-24

COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-sPEcIAL TssN-J,G a.
Before Judge NcRAHAN
John Sch1rck sst Michsel X. Wilson.
Motion dismssod With $40 costs.
wIiism Ksowl'on "a Bepj,mIu De Forest
Molten 70 vacne order of arrest denied with sio
costs 10 plaintiff, to abide event.
P,Rr II Before Judge BEApY.
THE IRVING HOUSE AND TUX TAILOR.
James l. i"ddes 's- Dayia ~ Mei''' John d Ays' md
The trial Of this action, which has occupied thros
dave, wos concluded TO day.
The questions Oflaw involved are Of much psaa.
teal importance TO community that we take tss
liberty Of ogsin recapitulaog the facts out Of which
they arise, in order TO prevent them clearly
The plaintiff Is lessee of the frat floor Of the buud
ing No 2s3 Broadway, which be hiss occupied for tbs
lat two years 90 tsilor's establishment. Ia the
month of March last, the defendants, Mellss e.
Ayeis leased the whole Of the building OF their co
defendant Lawson Carter who is tho owner Of the
prouis6sD subject 10 the lease held by MADDEN. Md
lies & Ayes found il expedient TO rebuild aud 81
The tenants, except IIsdden gave them permission -
do, and abandoned their leases Of the building ad-
dining. UaCden refused to vacaie unless be was vel
paid. Regarding lisddens domans as erorbitsnt. tho
cek bdsns tore down the whole Of the building No 2S1
Broadway, and the adjoining building, except thak
part held by the plantiG and In its place built mar
Bile cd6cc the so of the old Irs ing House part of
which building is erected over the PLAINTIFFS stofe
The little onestory shop of the plaintiff has or months
pest attracted much public attention and still oatssss
The eve Of every person who enters StewaHs
Tho plaintiff brings the present action 10 reoSv6
dsmt ger for alleged invasion Of his rights aud thu
Guptticn Vs. bow for If A. oil occupant Of part u
building, or the landlord can alter or rebuild thai
pant which DO holds.
Judge Brady, after the counsel for both parties bsl
summed up at great length, charged the Jury very
bris fly.
Tbis being in its nature an equitable actioa ne SAID
il Iocesey that sppc alton should bs made 10 se
Court after you hsys passed upon the ssues ~ be sub
mted TO you, for scch Judgment S. upon your finding
spd Il plesdngs the Court shall consider just sa4
this ptOctedr is chiefly 10 satisfy its conscience. Fd
this resson have limited the discussion Of tho iegd
quortiors involved in thi. controversy and for this roa
scD ALTO, she'll abstain from explaining " you Tho
law 10y which your deliberations 30 DO governed,
except TO state that It must be assumed that the sSioa
Of lspdloId and tenant existed between these parties,
east that the law Of landlord and tenant sp Dss.
By bs law Of landlord and tenant you are ava'e that
tie landlord during the term Of the lease has right
10 interfere with interrupt hi, tonant ia the beneficial
us% Or eDcyu eDl Of bis premises.
The Judge sftor submitting two questions % the
jury which y III be fourd below concluded by saying
"It may BE- and with this view ono Of the QUESTIONS
submitted TO you hes been framed that the right 70
alter prtpises 10 inherent ia the Ownership OF fsa
estate and where part only derDised by the And
lord that Dist right may be exercised By alteraisns
osrrec out with Furh 10 avoid any inraouoo OF
the tenants benz fetal ue and occupation IN otbor
woTds that Tie right to build Is Incidental to ths ga
end mfy be exercised provided the landlord uses al
reasonable pocauiion not 10 intertsTe with to- tenah
rigbts." The Judge then charged a. 10 the menprs d
demsess.
Dir Shea asked the Court TO charge further:
]. That the demse OF premises 10 one party. IsJea
10 prior lease Of a part OF the same premises -
oDo'Ltr party does not, itself, constitute Ae Tss1'a
Of lsI 6lOld and tenant.
@ That The jury arc, by the law limited n 10
amount Of their verdict 10 a fair csumats OF the ibufy
dore 10 the plsiLt If any, unless they Ind eI1Tass
ma ice in Tie scis Of the Defendants
s. That TIE Dc Pendants are not liable for the cSs0-
qUenc.s e their Lawful net, upon all or part Oh mo
buildings which were their premises.
g. Thet there e no eYiccnee ir this action that hs
deGtdsus MeIlss & Ayers have recognized or ADOPT
cd ihe plainf ~ their ienant by any affirmative act
h,s.d 10 aJopt he ofLers 20 which M. s. eTceptd
Hr. Sbee--I also ask your Honor to charge that chs
Jury arc not TO consider plaintiff oouasei fees 10 thor
estuste Of damage Is spOken OF BY plainii counsa
Tie Count Go nileuen the plaintiff IS not enhbsS
20 couns, fees ard If be were there 70 proof "a
tie suouLt II counsel fees ia this csse lie cAnos ~
coytr for counsel feos
Tie following the irsue: which were suonitod -
tire jury: .
/. Did the making Of the alterations maze by M
def Idans In or to the premi.es a which pisioffs
tenement formed part, interfere with or inisrrups ne
Beneficial use or enjoyment OF the premses Aaa y
yea, what damages CT! be sustain Ia eorleqssace -
SUI b interference or Interrupted
2. Did the cffsbdanis in making the GteTassssi
sdop. reasonable and precautionary meas % ssns
in;fIsring with or insrrupiDg the plsintih os'"-
| fetal use or enjoyment Of TIE premises1
The Jury were out from 10 10 p ~. wee ~ ~
| brought In q sealed verdict, Which was oPeasa ~
morning. 1t wa fouLd that they ar.-eTeo retn 9sos
| tors ID The enlrinftVe, Da. oltaEee" ~
| ten Of dsmsges, 50 that their facing P'seassJ
no account
| COURT OF 6EEYRAL sEssIOss-JAs o-b,tSo I7AS
HrSSrLL. 49,.
Jeremiah McC aaley tried and eonvictsd OF h,xn
wsy robbery or the person Of Barney CosEeve, dne
l46 Ply mouth street Brooklyp Sntenee, n1esn ~"
| and Elk ncn'bs, Sta:e Prison .
M~fsal Sugept visa tried snt-eony.cte1 o. h.shyX
r,bhs,y rsno.ipg Archibald vslal.s, Of No. ~ -
Tfi,tyG,st sheef. Se1tsbce, STATE Pfzse ta "
| james Wines pleaded g1lly to ssss1i' saa es"sV