The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1864-04-02
THE NORTHRUP TRESPAss CASE.
Conclusion or the Case-vcrdtet In Favor
or the Plaintiff, Sc.
SUPREME C0URT-CIRCCfT.
Before Judge Barnard.

ArIuL -Cap,r NJ Norihvup q. John g. reed.r 1rd
Cornelid reeierThe interest the proceedings to day
was undated, and the court crowded as usual
The forenoon occupied by tho counsel for the defence
IN sumag up the evidence while the counsel for the
plaintiff occupied two hours during the afternoon Tho
arguments able and interesting and were listened
70 with undivided attention by the audience During the
delivery Of addresses tho pannH and the defendants
alike moved to tears and many OF the spectators
some OF whom were women-evinced thor sympathy 10
similar manner At'tbrce O'Clock Judge Barnard pro
ceeded 10 charge the jury, substantially Il follows
JuDGss CHARGE
Gentlemen Of the Jury-Tbis case has occupied your
attention for nearly week From the ability OF the
sumed most important character The amount Involved
IL not very large QUE but the question for you 10 de-
is that the defendant from tho procession OF the
Plaintiff personal property valued at between two and
three thousand dollars which the psina seeks com
pensson Every particle Of evidence that has bean pro
duced and admitted By tho Court be taken INTO con
suss y you . by, q no sv
teraincd A controversies between tho plaintiff and his
wife should be discarded The question did these de-
valucy According to law every person Who oius another
in wrong act counsnanoes i causIiy liable and il
property even though they did 50 al The rcauest OF
the paintis wife, they arr liable this action The
her husband OF take any thit she dd moi own Conss
qusnty she could not convey the right any one else
ake away III therefore, you Ind that the defendants
were engaged 10 taxing away property which belonged 70
the plaintiff you must assess damages against them IN
amount sufficient to cover the loss and no more You
must lose sight OF all the excitement that has been
brought out In this controversy shape your verdict
without regard TO serngs the paIn or defendants
have endured by the separation Of the plaintiff from
his wife There must be no smart money allowed for
you will bear In mind the Court decided that point on
the fret day OF the trial The principal questions 70 be
decided First, did the wife own his property for
II she did she had the right 10 take Il away,
even " she was wholly unust6ed Ia leav-
log her husbands house,. She might acquire
this property by GIN from hePhusband or relatives or
she might have acquired II by her own earnings n you
find that the inventory produced by the defence covers
all that taken aud that The title 10 the property
vested 10 the wife, he DEFENDANTS bad right 10 remove
II, aud are not liable for damages The second question
for you 70 determine is, what value OF the pro-
pertyr fhe defendants claim that not worth
than four hundred dollars while the evidence for the
plaintiff shows that worth between two and three
the defence 20 charge that the plaintiff told the de-
PENDANTS that the property belonged 20 his vito then
they would not be liable for removing IL at her request
That W the law gentlemen, and 50 charge you IL Ia
your duty 70 harmonic the testimony as much pos
tble II you canuot do So you must settle upon That
evidence which seems most probable aud worthy Of
credencc. II you arc satisfied that any part of wuoss
testimony IL untrue, and that be testified wiIfuy
and msliciousy 10 your duty 10 discard tho testimony
entirely In conclusion, would say that ouM you
der verdict against the defendants, " must be Joint
one You cannot say that Me- vceder Is liable 10 the
amount OF nifty dollars and Miss vcedcr sixty Your YER.
dict must be Joint ono, affecting the defendants equally
The jury then retired for deliberations and aitor being