, 1864-01-27

An Important Egg Suit, Eggs.actly reported
-IeaV1tt VI. Bates, Stone Co..


This case, before the Circuit Court yesterday.
was On eggs. Twenty-Five dozen Of eggs thst,
BY the marks on the barrels, should have been In
tho lot purchased by plaintiff Of defendants, but
alas were not there, were made the subject Of ju-
detal incubation. The attendance of Judge, tury,
clerks, Witnesses, counsel. PARTIES, reporters and
spectators, made the process Of Matching expen.
sive and protracted, and converted the court {and
by this we mean no dls1espeet to the Judge
who, poor manl could not help himseli)
into as costly and complicated a hens
nest as could we'll. be :, conceived Of
The hens that did not lay the eggs that were not
In the barrels, Honld hare cackled with excite
ment, could they have been Intelligent Witnesses
Of ftha f1ss their neglect had created. The case
Wis m e19sta one, ANAL in size, but great in the
quantity Of eggs,-indeed the. eggs completely
filed tt-it WA 20 email. 1urors insisted they
were e1Q*enpt and SO we're e2Qscused.
Counsel, evidently lords = Of the walk,
n full feather, eggamlned Illnesses, and eggaert-
ed their cowers in eggsemplifIng their positions,
cesehfbiting tn-.:- news and eggspzeasing their
opinions to the Court and ja:;.y: But though the
case originated In sale OF eggs, strl tnSsse who
conducted It did eggsel in nothing unlezs it s7as
in consuming ttme,
This they did to the eggstent Of day and half
when the jury reported for the plaintiff nary egg.
At this the defendant became eggstatic. The sin
ElC x4fAAUu WHICH CQuAu{MeQ ell I146 ftm9 WAS
this, wns the defendant bound to mike good to
the plaintiff the dtderrnce between the number Of
eggs in the barrels and the number marked on the
outa1de. As this Ia question Of some interest In
Chicago trade, We give our mercantile readers the
instructions given BY the Judge to the jury On this
point:
1.-THE Jury believe from the evidence that the
eegs n question were bought By The plaintiff Of
the defendant under an agreement between the
plaintiff and the defendants, that the plaintiff
should take them at the mark upon the barrel the
plaintiff to pay for them according 10 said mark,
and without reference to the actual number which
the barrel might contain, and on account OF said
Them At less price than he would otherwise have
been obliged to pay, and th.t tbs defendants had
received the eggs for sale upon commissions, and !
sold them to the plaintiff under the agreement /
Aforesaid, said defendants being ignorant at the
time Of sasd es1e Of any deficiency between the
number marked thereon. then the Law ID for the
defendants even though the Jury eho2ld
believe that the number of eggs delivered |
to the plaintiff WEE actnaily less than
the number marked upon said barrel.
But If the Jury ehon1d bclieve from the evidence,
that the cfg1 were purchased by the plaintiff With
out any special agreement Or understanding Whist
were marked u containing a certain number Of
eggs, and shAt the plaintiff bought the eggs and
pA1o iof them At the nsuM market price for eggs, |
pfo!1oed tho barrels bad contained tho number
married thereon. then. IN the absence Of any Agree
ment oT naaefstanding In regard to said eggs, the
which the barrels pu1portod to ooutain, snd II The
(nT ka1esee beHeyo fo The evidence that the NUN
bef OF egEB actually received bv nlsjntf6 waa leaa
han the number tor which he rstd, thcu the platu