The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-02-21
Superior Court.

RESPONSIBILITY or STOCKHOLDERS IN MINING
CoMPAsY.
FIR 2o-Bonner %. thomas Morton Sine N LstInd
Warren Leland, Charles Leiarf. o y HDuenb.cl, ct al
This cage closed yssseijsy. Ths evidence wen,
TO show lbas the defendants having themselves
into what they considered be . company csllod the
Missouri I'D Company, engaged the plaurd 10 proceed
TO Missouri 70 supei aiead he Working Of . nine o.
,beirs at given salary Tue plaintiff socordinyly pro
ceeded 10 the mine where endng soieu, miners he
procesdei by request OF the diress,rs aseO pro-
cure efficient Cornsh from sne nearest place. aud
returned with them W the mine. On bis return no was
met by letter from the person who eiciatod ~
isry, ordering him 10 discharge bis men and TO
New York forthwith, as circumstances over which the
Secretary had no coniroP'-nameiy, . general break
dovn-hsd put end for toe pressnt 10 tee COMPANY
However tire company could not rse money enough 10
pay the p'snnn. eIpsnss 70 New York; tnose
New YoSb, the plsuun demanded DAY mept OF his
taia,y but amer various and promises nom the
defendant, Morton, Boenbeck and Others he could OBJ
tain nothing, and therefore sued for the whole
The def ndarts, u whom thtre are eSht Ia Court
&C. ,s ,I sv sc,sss o Sss 70 support
cohesiod thai he bad nu;ated the books aad none
we're Produced psrol evidence berg given Of their
tents.
The Judges charge vas s,bstaEaIy ~ folio s-Gen.
ts Of the Jury-rhere certain legal questions In
most that We can eIpso, to achieve BY our Srss d.ys
labor se,uemt n, OF the iscts me sppsren. design
Of TIE plaintiff sccordios to the Complaint 70
under special statute which provides for ipcor.
po,a OF panies tboua certain passAs q
in the complaint which would lead TIE belief that some
trial ruled that he plaintiff had no, proved the racor
poraon of the defendants he now claims lhai they
united n BIS ,, & -1s,s s ,Ss' created CO.,
Pens,,iou. Tbs may undoubtedly be correct The
plspun usy have oeen erploytd BY TIE personal scs
ssey are al bssna By he cou,r,os '' 81 sm
ploym so he may have been employed BY The per.
"; IN which case tkey alone are answe'sbs Tnus he
nrss question ior yogr dtcson = whether the plaintiff
there certificate which evlds Of an Association
smers I've Of the defendssh This actual evidences
Of delegation OF authority 70 .nyt ave parties ont II 10
ipciptpt step THIN there Is the subscr ptloa napr
Which, you believe TO- constitutes sun further evidence
OF The association ~ 70 those Who sirnoi H. Aud tho
giving Of promisscry notes 10 paynen, tor the mining
lard sti further coYroboravs evidences OF the &C, OF
association Tor specific purpose Should the acts Of the
parties anerward appear 10 be In 'uainaen OF tails pur.
csc, ,hese various Items tf evidetcs will acquire pccu
n fcrce Its In ev'cence tbs, the parties assentsd /,
he manage ment Of the concern By tue trustees re-
quest pas beer MAZE charge tina, tnore il no svi
Norton; there doubt In boih cases. but In both, 4
you believe The Witnesses, you win appareoy and evi
whether ibey ether delegated general au,bcrity
beforehand 70 the hus,es, or asseused sfser.
ecre,ary OF Tho company the paiptr ordering him
10 Ms, our rsosiing him and 90 forth You must In.
quire BY What sothoriiy these letters were written Kby
the general sutbosy OF al The associates then oil arc
liable; " BY some only then by them alone ma, some
Of the defendants sbio there can be 20 doubt, the
crIy question s how many are liable Nert s 70 tbs
peIioim sEce, there 10 no doubt the plsinf wen, "a
Potcs and undertook the SUPERVISION OF the defendans
nines He discharged some men whom be did not con
sicer qualified, and went 70 Late Superior 10 engage
oshcrs s appears 10 have bten Contemplated bstore
hand Next We hear that he recalled By letter from
the tecfetarF ard that be returned Neg orr the
pnuts who employed him having written 70 say thai
ihsy bad resolved 70 discontinue Operations. he Ger
slny could do no less The learned Judge concluded nv
directing the jury IN What shape thsy were 70 ssa q
verdict
Amer brief the Jury returned 70 court and rave
verdict against ell the defendants for All a.