New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-08-24

,,-,.,a. a, ...sI 70 tie piss.s By rcssss % Ne -
,.seS ~ eh .. the ssr~CDsc' ~ ne se'sssA''
'.,ses az ~. co'a " ss9 .. ~ 49,
oil. ssi1 - 80 t.rpEin % ca ,h. ye 40 set,~ -
tsrr-nsd a.. sr~e,sI l.Jo INV
ia ro TT. % s nd ajss orb, se e.,.s
v, - = - r.~a 90 his, s-EsDie s.sitS
ior :rjuss = lie ta.e s,aiiss ~'l - Tor b dsasss
\ - ,b- Se.eg Sant Ysa IT, the PsiHir 'AySs tas' W. ~
We. TIE p,sias further e.sed ,as, he sss.s..s
scomsroase onl' for MS To-. OF fes o. & A. -
- TO tia eq the '.e ~ -, n. SsnT .ss sssA.
.,nt soped 20 Pay ssyh,ns saioSeT e,sir ss, -:
ssrr' men. ~ h; - he addition sNs~ton To- ps',ste
red s~sg. and 'o'i 20 s0s'.s, sod The des-aa:ss
@ x sef.,cant pad 70 preyent a~.oi; rae pass'is
nsrsy sts',d III ne eorpan'd o. 81 ~mca 80 ~ ~
rec liar the tnbsrs under ne bidn: a9a To- 49,
roe u ne ssrps tie b. pledged his hOo'f thai all AZ
sISir Va >, .sd snd he would nj sac -, ,,,,.-, 90,
60. ., 70 the defense Of seeAd aae s'ss' s@ ' sss
that Stasst from the ~hc,s Co. ~h.,wsxss
rpos .Ob , ~ T. -. ':sss.i
! 10 he DAMAGES he awarded. .ssia -
The se.ioa alleged breach OF Oousrsc, ,vs,
nns, not OILY BE- syeed. be with cert.ia
| net lef &c sP~cnktf'a srd COZ ecisTe.
ssssssi'sd BRYANT Bge.f.l,er, Bas SIS. vos =
BIB, So D smith l.i; &c. go orsos SSs 9.
! bf Ref So Sedewick oG DsD.re. 30 SO
T. . ,@esss It s.9ss'
waived al objection sion by sosw, re .ai sns e
'siaf h,c 'a.ared setns damage. srdt sill nsossY
thm Prove the ibjerrs caused toe breach es1
ia ne cansses which he nanedaer conseaacaoss q
ana 'nd form 10 ground Of The pse@s- rsss1
vrrsA OF The building Wits kschea in the 49,
Ma cn irco-ed back ocpcu tie FIRE. aecs -
TIC Een-ns the plaintiff aoqvrea r,sa to ts1ano
ssbe bim :, enjoy hsysrd prsese lie had nrtN -.
n.ner.y M, or al H. and The poo. uRoe has Pss w
from som. Of thr eyiden introduced wihs
sId inary h, asine's But BET said rseef wss
given which srv such damage could lie determined he
proved 70 have been interrupted por for Al loss without ev
showing the s snd extent Of such o. aud ssy
injury proven. "a alter s,t Po.i Drer 500
He chose rent the premise. with fl kSowidse q he
he remained in the sSOa;e Possession nos h'tssdns
ne now claims ne dernins aed to PSFio% 10 sorf;s Y
the which might recov. concedns hs, the dsfat
value to the plaintiff between the premises In the they
actually h. aud the condition which they ~osd have
ssfeed i upon. tGrfss sst Cover Supra "''
But entitled to make repairs under the Agreement.
STIPULATED an. oy the clause which provided that the dssa2
maize any pais either before after tie work
In ADDITION however to the views have here presented
be epsred ro respecting the Occupation OF the premises ca
titled all He expressly sgeed make any
OF snch work or The manner in which conducted and
whether the workwhcb included the building Of the WALL
studdng and boarding and al other matters In
with consequent upon the wall being eectedw
Improperly done he sgeed make claim tor
{ aniage " hich be might sustain BY reason u IL.
There s another aud equally fatal objection 70
in the defense of accord and ss;actioa
weight of the evidence this point being have
aed DO understand Why 1t Ignored BY the Justice
The parties shown have respecting the subject mat
ter ana injuries compaued this sction there be
that the defendant puted the clam in good faith P
rneoB AIT Huxod DEMO 1861 and after the parties had
.deed the MISTER dispute the defendant paid and plaintiff
ccep,ed the % saying that all his claim then settled
In hat been able TO tbs
iud gmeut of the Justice be sustained
Judgment reversed.