The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-05-11

IL
cial coalition. That we may he preserved from such
an improbable necessity is still our constant prayer
Marine Court.
Before Hon. Judge Thompson.
ACTION AGAINST A RAILWAY COMPANY FOR THE
VALUE OF LOST BAGGAGE.
MAY TO- Lfpinus j. lansing rs. The Hudson
Rirer Railroad Company.--On the lst of September,
1853, the plaintiff together with his wife and
nephew, took passage on the defendants road, at
Troy, for New York. After purchasing his tickets
he delivered two trunks to the proper agent, re-
ceiving at the same time corresponding number of
cheeks. just before the train reached the city, a
man by the name of j. S. Caulkins, in passing
through the car asked the plaintiff if he had any
baggage he wished to be delivered ia New York or
Brooklyn. The plaintiff desired to know from Caul
kins If he was authorized by the company to take
passengers baggage He replied that he was,
at the same time handing the plaintiff a print
ed circular as evidence of such authority
The plaintiff then gave Caulkins the two checks and
directed him to take the baggage to his residence in
Brooklyn, receiving from him at the same time q
card, upon the back of which Caulklins wrote the
figures 1876 and $50 the numbers of the respective
checks. One of the trunks, with its contents, O
the value OF $53, has never yet been delivered to
the plaintiff. 1t is to recover that amount that this
cotton was brought. 1t was admitted that on the
INST day Of September 1858, Caulkins had the ex-
elusive privilege of entering the defendants cars
and soliciting checks for baggage and that it was
his duty to deliver the same according to the d.
rections of the passenger.
Judge Thompson said there are two or three i'm
porant questions involved in this case affecting the
interests of the entire travelling public. II does not
appear from the testimony whether the trunk was
lost by the defendant or by Caulkns. Upon the
argument, however, it was assumed by counsel for
both parties that it was lost by Caulkins. 1t is
taken for granted therefore, that such was the fact
II may be questionable whether the contract be-
tween the President of the company and Caulkins,
80 far at least it relates to the delivery of the
passengers baggage is not absolutely void, on the
ground that such companies have no power by sta
tute to enter into such arrangements. q r. s.,
l220) 1t is not necessary, however, to discuss that
question, since the defendants do not resist the
claim upon that ground. They maintain that the
contract was made by the plaintiff with Caulkins as
principal, and not as servant of the defendants.
The agreement between the President of the COM
pany and Caulkins is arrangement by which the
latter promises the defendants that he will deliver
the baggage OF passengers at their residence for
tain prices therein agreed upon. BY the terms of
that contract Caukns became de facto the agent or
servant Of the defendants for the purposes therein
specified. The plaintiff claims, and properly, too
that in making the contract to deliver his baggage
from New York to Brooklyn, he had right to, and
did regard Caulkins as mere agent or servant
the defendants as principals in the transaction The
defendants liable for the loss of the trunk, and
Judgment must be rendered for the plaintiff for fifty
three dollars and costs.
Before Hon. Judge Mccarthy.
SUIT FOR THEATRICAL NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF
THEATRICAL AGREEMENTS.
Henry b. Phillips rs. Tiuiam !Stuart.-This
action was brought TO recover balance Of $175 due
plaintiff and his wife, who had been engaged, the
plaintiff as prompter and actor, and his wife as
actress, at Walack's theatres the engagement was
made with Mr.. Wallack in the year 1852, and re-
newed from time to time until the present season. at
the rate of s35 per week. The plaintiff was called
as witness, and testified to the agreement and the
assumption of the same by the defendant when he
became proprietor of the theatre. On cross-exami-
nation he testified that in February last he was dis
charged because he would not appear in and enact
the character of Achmet in the piece entitled,
Jessie Brown by Dion Bourccaut. He wrote a
letter to the defendant, giving his reasons for re-
fusing TO take the part the defendant wrote back,
and referred him to Mr. Lester, the stage manager
who had the sole control of that and like matters
appertaining to the theatre; upon calling on Mr.
Lester, he was informed that he tplainti) cast
for the part and must perform il or leave; where
upon he left. IL appeared from the evidence
that according TO the rules of the theatre,
which were posted up in the green room,
that any actor refusing to appear In any part Cast
for him, the manager was at liberty 20 either Dis
charge him or deduct weeks salary" On the
plaintiffs resting his case, the defendants counsel
moved for nonsuit on the grounds-lst, that
plaintiff, without sufficient cause, refused 10 appear
in part cast for him, and therefore the defendant
had r1gnt 10 ulscnafge MN ACCORDING 10 the rules,
I'd, that the plaintiff having made an agreement 10
perform for $35 per week during the season. and he
having left before the season ended, he was not en-
titled 20 recover for what he bad DONE Thersupon
the plaintiff offered TO show that he was cast for
that part (Which he considered beneath him) by
Dion Bourcicaut, who had some III feeling towards
him, for the purpose of Notifying him, &c. After
argument, the court decided In favor of the defend
ant on both grounds raised and entered judgment
Of nonsut.
The suit created quite q sensation amongst the
members of the theatrical profession, several Of the
most prominent being present a. witnesses or spec
tators.
STOCK JoBBEG OPERATIONS IN WALL STREET.
SmaRey, Heed and Co., us. Danid Berlin
Action brough, TO recover $3.50 on account Of some
stock operations In Wall street. II appeared from
the testimony that the parties had dealings together
and on the sth July last accounting was had,
when $40 was due the defendant and paid by the
plaintiffs. On the 10th day Of July the defendant
sold fifty shares OF Ere, 10 be delivered on the
Path. The party 20 whom he cold insisted on
broker assuming the contract. The defendant met
Mr. Bartlett one of the plaintiffs and asked him TO
assume it, which be did. and the usual brokers' or
stock contracts were exchanged. When the time
for delivery came the defendant was short Of the
stock and Mr. Bartlett TO bis seat at the Board
Of Brokers, delivered the fifty shares. He met the
defendant day or two after, and notified him that
unless he made good the contract he would buy fty
shares and charge the difference; and on the 2sth
July he did purchase, and this suit IL brought to
recover the difference which was some $780,
The defendant set up a. defence the statute
against selling stocks on time, claiming the whole
thing 10 be illegal and void he had stock under
his control at the time Of the transactions. The de-
fence was sustained and Judgment rendered for de-
PENDANT.
Supreme Court-Circuit.
Before Hon. Judge Clerke.
NOTE TRANSACTIONS.