New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-08-24
Id w MT,ELLIGh W
COURT OF COMMON FLsAS-GEsERAr fsaA-ees>>
JUDGES DLY, BsApY sna hiIr~'
MICHksrCS IIES-PRACTICE.
AMI Srrm

Fist. Ths' the pi.ie.g entitled 70 The H.,.ss. a
the tine be eensnaed the Or when the zen vas 81 ana
could gue.t ioT TIE aulosui clumed
Second That he psu 70, entities 70 len upo toe
FOR able furnished the wnoie seven and n
oud.d the SD Posuy AID a he r-res found llas
on. yeu,b q the marble Into tn Psckn.s hoe
t-s .bo pea s.dssss psoPoron q tbs contra;
pre- ou be scua. r which tue PlAna been aadsea
Tb,S Tbs, the marb. furnished was net in accordance with
the Of the contact and proper deduction should be made
rPor that
The 6ecison BY adverse 10 the fret and third
prorosor ard IL respect the second determined that
me =. not .Hse 2 s io5 hs sIos S ssa IN
fling toe motion AID the directed 70 be seut back
sbich the Pncsney house. that The smouni when as
oei,arei might deducted from the plaintiffs en found by
the referee 10 exit upon the remaining sN houses
Upon th ground the Judgment appealed ion was reversed
sud anew trial ordend.
being and that in accordance with the qles.
contained IN the appellants third The onesyenta part
witch the already found and which is both sides
.soo be deducted from the snen and pom the ,na
erting such reduction the Judgment be affirmed Tor the re
csn see 70 objection to doing this especially Is ex
act conn lance with the arreau.s reqas, the argument
The direction would not have been made originally hsd
the had already found the exact amount in
value of be labor and msteas which the Pncksey
house, and attention being now called 10 TINS particular
finding alone sufficient to induce dispense with the drc-
Tbs d.p, q the would have been made by
the Igume Of the notion but for the objection Of the appel
Isn't who oppose, cur doing his very hing which he former
He desire. re Trial Of the cause that may be enabled
aud distinct question not heretofore aiyred % y
eth
We ere rot disposed % sanction such practice The appeal
has been aeac pod Of upon the grounds Presued by him
argument and eoufO ming judgment his equss;
theu made, think give him no reason for complaint
would not have avoided passing upon IT. Bat it o.1not
The issues willing put the parties to this
ply enable the appellant test experiment which might
or NJ mot result TO his adj antase.
FoT these reasons the Judgment will be that and
unless the plaintiff elects to deduct onesyenih OF the
aoun, ported BY referee and reduce the lien
be awarded either party upon this appeal But anew
trial had by Of the plaintiff refusing 70 reduce his
lien the vii abide the eyeuto Of the action.
SURRENDER OF STOCK.
Henry Sioa The York ana Erie Railroad Company
DAILY f. J.-There was no evidence from which
the Referee would have been justified in assuming that the stock
surrendered by the defendants 20 Schoi the individual prop
ey Of soa scho ard Soa copartneIs contracted bd
certain tracks docks and piers fog the defendants which were
to finally paid for By the defendants in the following
Schca Sst subscribe for ard t.ke the capital stock
o the defendants equal 10 the value of all the work
work D ands the Contract s to $500 for ey mad rscsyed
reymers to S@ao, leaving balance due then Of $3.50
Of shares stock, and for this balance Of $500 they also
oeved shares that amount amounting in all 10 ISL shares
appeared that sost in addition had an individual contract
with The deeudsns Tor which he aso agreed to receive their
stock and they bad issued stock TO him Individually Il
further appeared defendants had agreed to give their
draft. ofwok be done under the contract OF shoa
amount of The stock subscribed by Shod and sost that in
s ss. SS n. SS 5 @ e order a
Of Sost for 1850 and received pledge or ypotheeaon for
.ns IN h name Of sch@ so snoaniSs to
together number stated standing in the
solt Tse defendants having aeSsrd received notice from
thr Commissioner that they could surrender the stock held
seouni Of the loan made By them 70 Schot Soa and to
amounting 81 GEO. sno the remainder they aerwsrd delivered
70 For the seventy shares thus delivered to Schof this
on brought and there Is not 10 the evidence the slightest
draft. 10 the order Of scho sloa and Henry T. Scat
.gn,d by individually and expresses that 10 consideration
the work for understood work
der the contract of seoa So and that 70 be done under
fufi az
amounting to $1,000 and starding N the name Of sehoh
Soa; shares the amount noe stated standing In his own
name The plain pfer,nce from paper
standing in the Of Schof sost belonged to them aud
was pledged security advance made for work thereafter
o. be- done by them their Joint contract with the defend
that the drafts drawn the order Of hoh soit by the
defendants for 800 advance made by the defendsts
upon that work which the stock standing the name Of shod
so.' wss dessIef 70 coyer nat the receipt wa. signed
stock security for the completion OF the work. makes no differ
s ss. hsr thar pa. Standing their and that
pledged security for work winch they were yet 20 do
n.1ssnsysaay III. possession u It. as one Of the ont
owners with blank power st.oey signed BY them attached
meey show that it passed 70 the defendant, with these blank
notbat hao been transferred othe plaintiff u
dy6uay and yet this Is the whole OF the Pantifs The
testimony excluded Irrelevant aud immaesi The inquiry
N repsG g what wa the ~, 81 s0s q, sT S
to;ay Irrelevant As respects the mex, question
the tact .sef iumseral and the Com
missioner that De Sos, owned the stock made after he
had advised the could be surrendered
wss able. IL declaration msde BY him.
forming part done N the Of DIS official duty tue
defendsnt agent and bad beeu received would not have
helped its Plaintiff lie mad not shown transfer Of the
stoS him individually or that ne had The sole tile 70 y and
could show that by declaration statement made
o. deendaDts officers When toe work done, for the
PENDANTS defendants not only justified In returning to
Of the partners out bound 70 give back upon
me den AID Of hsr They returned seventy share: sm9s
BY them the order Of Scho slo, The report Of the
referee should De affirmed
APPEAL FROM JUSTICES COURT.
Jane, Nesry agt Homer Bostwics.
HiIToY, 1.-The plaintiff complained before the
Jurice for breach BY tie defendant ola e'9isa sonsnsd n
No. 52 Brosdwsy In the 4 the complaint
t ss % IL bed adpI nd protsr upon tho
premises in its putting and in not taxing away At
The general denial and accord and '.isf. ton
Tie Justice gave Judgment for me plaintiff Tor ~ dnass
and the deendan, appeals the principal ground reed On being
that Of action wss shown ana also that was PrSyra
that before the acton vas bro1sh ~ paini ieesyd OIL Tic
l, appeared TIA. he Defendant leased 70 she p,n'n t3s one
49, b 90, icL.n sd pyivlsre 10 me ward In thi. wri..
recitsd tst the defendant Intended 70 aIs
party wall and the plaintiff agreed 10 give free access e e times
TO the Peons engaged n such wo and % permit THIN 20 %
ton also, would not make claim r any los. injury,
dsaye sustained by hin in consequence Of such work o. the
IN which Il might De conducted and the plaintiff
d. pas any KIND on or upon the premises ei,aer
before 0 lfteI Tie completion Of the work.
Aer this ease and prepared and ready for
seLoB, would iiom al Inspection Of ~ there w1s
ADDED 10 elause and by the defendant
pat Up add and toaTtrto inese the prrss and 20 take
after the etE Of The wall AID Tor breach
u this coLtrset the present action Tzs brought
The evidence ths part Of tie plaintiff % the trial tended to
that TIE ddns and boarding pu, Up Unnecessarily en-
coshed upon h stairway by which 20 the second tory
door That did extend % include
the hole Of the kitchen part Of an addition story
ha which existed al tn end 81 .hr rss:oy pad, and
Cmfi By ncosnz the bsca stp, through with sceess
generally had the yard although could BE- aud likewise
reached stairway from from the roof VI this addition Oas
Of witnesses testified that the stairway y tne eerosch
made that three ur .ei b. heard both a.
dies d gentlemen refuse up The ceuy being that; in
sns "a lady would have 70 raise her dIess and .ICeele
On his examination however appeared that although he
worked for the pni he knew Of customers thos efasng
hat be could the Parties DC refuse die he know
their business
ivsssSo shown that the plaintiff put up stairway
three after the stucdng aud thereafter there
free ns The u this stairway So heres9ooi