New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-08-11
Id " N7'ELLIGE VCE
COURT or COMMON PLEts-G-yyssL rS,g.
Before JliE-, DAILY. BRADf aad aILIoN.

the that nrF paid .li o.
copied Il + A rsrIssu c. CP'n in- "a
" .h~a nat ne 49, dsrei.r tn ps'-' y . s,.
non ne Is; 4 Aasus; 10 ard .rss o. t-s-p' Srl- r.
cr,o ssus by the pur;Gs scsn ~i.dsnS ine receipt
Go e,eyeiss from TIE Eth Of Msy ss TO ise -9 Of aica
la T- actou oF 'l- sti ifor - ~ .
The 7tn NV Tn pailf having heAso thst ilsia
a. 20 IA. ma - ~, H. 20 r. - b. emerged ,bogt
the hiatt they intended ocuPI ~ store r - san ti'
a~sF Wt@u this pzc- Did . appear tlt iae
c,frost 70 occu py The premise. thereafter. aus paid
lie m ill., rec-p. f h Lt br wri',et accoiias iaer
dita',n In M.ich, 1852 tn paErirs sse1 had coi'.i
Il them hiir. 'o' year after hr lith
MAY c nen taey hsy have Tor the
fdowrE year h-y among tie Psu'f, oe' r-..,'
arc bad swsy' psd pulclsy "her ine rat "a, aeAul-d
~ TIE IA, qsrer the DEF darts aa that -y hai pae money
mole hat + ingistan Co. owed theul St-y. OPo.
tut s,a n set, The Judge charged tie jury .5'als' taai
Tie cef,uosuis made the aEresmen with m pri ieI
sbs 'CH tie above STAT iat' arc eNsd o-' oI 80 ~
ia The feui'ss snd payilg he rem ~ = N q
snst lab- 20 ne p.ltH iji ne
ls'i qusr, which uction the dre1d'nis * rptef
aa ~ any utd foi tue plaintiff Tie dee d4is a' $50
Ictss m tIe cas-, nom waic ne relation II landlord sad
tslsI a.. NV couract psu,if ane 80 defendants
cor "a Boo inferred that tn prsgrpn arising nom oc patton
vas rebui'd BY the prot Of lining which application W"
There sufficient ,ahait the ~ the qa'.
ton whether ne occspa'l oi the Preae' BY III ivraan
made by aen wiki IN painf aud
ihogsh tbs' question Wa n pr the Jury So crA' c :. M
n.ht have have been ~. o. sppafeG' rom ne
sr ty be Jad:e hat h. rean' TO- an Oh 10 'f'
AL eirri vel view Of ,lo wing :h., The defendants
occupied de;u.uts Of y. iusrhlm Co st;sr ne
failure Of hlm receipts by the Piutfs
ssIt ie D., defendants dit,ou. c.nov.dgns the TeP
o. Of A Irgrauam c.. This was crcam
s.rce, ccu'rolliog IL Va, 70 De- weighed
szns be Ch,r eyeuee at eft - toe Juy if them 10 de-
shai ccuclsilu w'1 be- srsst fror tue wno- II
tie geher aud question % fact which,
such eyjerce might have been determined either
10 r.,p,c the hldng Jury coucg,ye the !sci
that To-, ,iccri,d 20 Of T. A Iasrsham
Co. csri.d sil7r buss. IN tn same premises after
when pailf m ADVISED Tia, cant 50 20 occupy
snd cary ne bus.ees' they saye MN thei' a',n
;ley pad heir rem, u,rabam c.. bu' 70 tas
sfrra. mae .r~ f.4H nny
70 -, ,s .bs,ttey w.re ruon, t bes. ten
and nd algsys PAID aeir rem puuctnsy were 'fm
en- 80 .r, .sI.eyo-n, Win the pintif
AID rot tenant, ulder from Z A luEr,h,n Co,
uo,with'iardi h- frm in which the ncrft' ser dlsn
wG II, d,fnsarts oecrpcd snd vtere ras- Outstanding
party otter than he lr,-e~, s.t'.ion .ae
il a, the sse- OF The esse wticn may b oyefoone
bwe'er b 'hosiIs hat be hod, uudrr it rom ne '
ward end 41 Quacsertt. as' Clark l. 10 boz a ,le
party IN occupation must b r,gar1ea - tl- a-"snriI
a, ,,bits ., tho landlord for me rect founded
upl piyiy ard action mus be ipon The lease
tie hi, lie oeuP,on 4 The premises by ne defendants
r,,,d by the plaintiff 70 rsrsnatn c., and tie plaintiff
II .le vsh ,he Of toe aud'rd before
tie Npro1 u IN. tenn usy inferred from cifc instances
aLd fs'e By the .ndord 20 thiis p4i 'a tas eoI'. 81
e.top the sndlod from claiming any fett hrrrairf ds ua
h,' (sfinss CAIPeuer - Aend - sn. az. ~. Nyn 81.
Barn 1870 IN this csse there wt dehce - "d5isu' ue
colcl change Of tenancy win ihe coaselt 81 a. par
i iersn' under al asrcei~ut By 'n Z" pay Ir % 81, pan
aud psiou .hr premises, "ach, uhft tI7
'Ma',b.g.sr, s.~s T.uut "a, DRY Lane Company
Ctspmap, Carr KnSsn, "a The Judgment '-'n1 De a.
''"'' Bedford az, T,rhume Edwards.
BE,DY, J.-lu thls case tue defendants claimed 10
e. the t.uss 81 A. 1Dgrahlm Co, bu, on :te tri 40
e eIc,of such relation given -HreP The receir'' ,assn
by defendants the payment Of rent 70 the asc q ne
1uo the ?d weresat"d 20 be- received
Tor aco1ut 81 r. A u-shsm % VIZ che no leys were
f al no. 81 lus
rh feature defense is fr this reas1n want
Il. ory and wu NJ, Justify the that P.d
paid By defendant. under tenants. ole Pieu'ry'
wh,i hey sd, afer he failure OF ?. A cEanam 20
,is, hey Intended occupy the store FOR tue same business
saidstee show ns at tir defendants liable f. A. ia
graham ur1cr any hiring ron them s cc'''i ~Hon'
ra,u u sa fincpe, han those lPon Witch mus,
be eeedea The p,nth hnans the aeena,'' IN gs
who. then ook place win the other cclm.
the question It tact which could oe submitted
win pIopr.ty the jury wa, dote here o. @ ae.sn
bv JUDGE pliy. IL wLichl eoLcIL
1 tLiIk tie judgment should Be affirmed
AndIew Oakley sgt The Worsinsmea' Union bene'o'sa
society
DNY.F. I'VE have nothing before NJ IN thu
Du, the Justice return " the ,dn''ioa made ey n
sud plaintiff INST should have been so"u y 'ihhs
i,, - i5,n.1. a., m. return G.y If The summons
Se,e'y appeared for The crloa = ald an
mt,,d thar they ilco'p rated bay he % admitted
that IS sd accrued % ;h- plaintiff ueubrr II the ~
b.irg he utly beu.h bit al answer :" the zion
psadeo hd been paid he olsn,f i.e brng
upon plea Il payment me cause W.. 81 lfur
by pohef ma On iaM Gay no one appeared
ff the GelrIs Its plaintiff had judgment tnr TIE -"
THIS ey .s.i Tas gsa's W. o., .@ qu gsa
TO prove whst We ADMITTED ny .ne pa. b sgs
the d,edau,. paid she 80, aud that w. ~ them
pSs & io., ms be- 4-d1d IS appearing for
corporation ,h.r attorney IN fact tor 70 hrtanS e
action oTvos,on sggrege sPpsr oDy ~ n-i 10 a.
10 - -, i,rV "a, an, borzo 10 o. 80 under
r. =
- i ih- at Va, e'hers 20 ne e,'s ne 'a,.
bs hvsrrs y the srPea have rad az sh. W - ' 81
Isy ar pear nd de-uo re'ou By Al aorLrJ - tue "a
- cy7 7 ard Tie P,r,dru; 70 Apgeafed
'h. 6.fucau's sg"nt or att rey 10 ic aad WI oe 81
App,rg aud plead u. in tie ,Leif agent as sdn.'on
lFou ttr Jerrs Il i'.A brans upon ihru i'F Id4
leut mus. therefore, be sfifuvd.
Christopher Bsluf,rth at Dorss.a, Sei'gs
DAILY, +. J i tank the Judge oelos va, Jnstned
~ a..uu that The 6e'eudsnt made repeseuator - "
krlirg La. te,t.r- I'd th.- the rrprrsu fas and
AIOw by tie defendant = 'lr nit - D. is' i
l,f-posr We, a. Ina; time u.oyeui -nd .n-w na,e O. b. Ia
t..t dou, ard credit SVEN teyns 1p n NE
oirsc isUy stated his cIcuu.anc' r-pr-'-ns'Jn
taAt te fe-y prsprEol' condition per- ey ''sl
fscory property fowed = cay, after BY Wy pa ia
would satisfactory explanation tln 70" erdaa
b,.Iphd by Dis affidavit The oa'f afpeasd iron' 'a'li De
Skinned
BR,nY. The plalatif states that the deiehd-
n, 3 h. ped IN scsealt I'D the dr-e aef, having
Lsce s'rh Fn1is" Inc t''ilnl, il.., e. -,
finding the Justice cannot b. 1,stLfbed Ne WI
ue...s e-ec prove The 81 crrls.ons Tor sim per
so.l ., -Iy p p.fy admitted to t,,tv irrrto lax
,.-.ia rrorer., and iUdrd rs sly ocular sac, y
.hYuc nav. t,.I hoKu. IeEsIdiug However thr "h- 81
nat evidence. which j. scunoAry necal' ~ me cerI1
promise Psy. hat promise l. .nol en- 70 'o" 'AA' u' P
u ea,.,Isd 81 recover ,-.sa
A. o. %, ,.rcud lain The evidence shoSs that % pa hHn
sd exchange Of to defendant: tna' ~
-sry. ta-d T. su.-ud. aud Ell il-. ytus -4ll'
fsrorv 10 %. TIE f-inft vas = receive
worth ewey b. gwen % tI- cei,a4il 10 :,
rasr g. ,hr paiucs 20 ccnsiffatr tr r'chatr
Towr..Dd secued the auo and tue eNlse IS Lo
mad. Tte plaintiff did -nGtr the .-.'ct sd BIG
- 10 rIv-, Tu-r. {. % c1rHict q evidence