The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-03-29
The Raislng u the Ship Joseph Walker.
sUPERIOR COURT.


sUPERIOR COURT.
Bsfsre Hon. Judge Woodruff and Jury.
AAHeH %--DOdes B@nes s. Fernando Wood and
chers-In this case Mr. Edmonds summed up for the de-
PENDANT and M cutting for the plaintiffs
The Court then proceeded 70 deliver very elaborate
and impartial charge 70 theury reviewing the facts I'd
doced. He said there three questions in which the
case presented sefFrst whether the plaintiffs had SUI
fered any wrong in the matter they had alleged their
complaint Second, IL such wrong we're committed, who
words who among the defendants had participated and
were responsible. Third, if such wrong had been
mnted, were the parties before the to be held
spObssle, what portion Of them and then what
ages had the plaintiffs suffered. the piaatits complain
hr their propery machinery and other things repre-
by the model before the court had oeen carried
away that they deprived of toe use thereof and
have suffered the loss CT It's value in other words ts
nse was eoiirey wtbhela frem them for te ana wat
they do recover was injured damaged they also COM
plain thatthey have lost the entire proceeds contract
they bad made FOR the raising of the ship Joseph
ns. 81 ,Sa ney were violently a.Spssessea
their work and by that deprived OF its result
Also OF the wreck Itself, which they emitted to- az
AFRO TO the net proceeds Of tao cargo, which TO be
come their property they succeeded raising the ship
All the defendants charged LA Die, 1cuolDg Wood
Jones Van Orden lane, as The trustees OF Jones &
kinney, ~ho was called TO take charge the ship after
he PLAINTIFF were dispose sseu. After elaborate review
OF the law and the facts the Gage concluded by ing
that The parties had no right TO possession and drive
The plaintiffs Gil by force and prevent them taking away
their properly. The right 10 possession OF the
Oh vi would JUSTIFY
parties in taking the benefit of s,os timber
and machinery constructed by the plaintiff Still. ess
the breaking njuEipg Of the plaintiffs property but
this right il existed would materially Affect the ques
ton OF damages If the plaintiffs the
performance Of the work II good faith, unaer
the arrangement with Jones and his associates,
and they have been forcihy dspossessed aud
prevented from completing the work they entitled
70 be compensated for the loss sustained thereby. No.
for the moneys they nal paid out but the OF the
property destroyed taken from Them for the gain
whi'h il proved they were deprived OF by me wreck
beng taken from their possession; AID they by
the arrangement 10 have the whole wreck tina! gan was
its value when taken from them, and any part OF
the cargo recovered, which woul, have them
not Bpossessed But the pain,fs not in the Pos
session OF this wreck under the alleged parole arrange
ment With Jones, but there themselves without
right Continuing the nuisance without any extension OF
time for the removal they had undertaken, then the
wrong done would enic them damages only Tar
their tmbers and property carried away. in.
Iurec, or 20 used that il did fact again
their Possession
The jury then retired, and having been gu. time
were Enabled 10 agree The Court ordered sealed
dctto be rendered IN the morning,
MARCH u line jury beng unable to agree were dis
charged We undersin they stood eight for verdict
aganst all the defendants and four were for verdict
against all but Mr.. Wood