The New York herald., 1865-01-11

she trial Of this csse men travelling difsren
sasSs Rr nr Field travels = one A4S SpayEe M Sars n skn In
up this claim travelled one road and Mr. Orison Blunt
representing the Board Of Supervisors, when he
snother road to ascertain what the damages tn
rules laid down in the law by which TO ascertain th
nas know haVe FOUND e
mind as much perplexed In some cases that have hae
in investigating rules Of damages as upon any question
thas have examined And these rules of daulag
are many Of them predicated not much upon any en-
hghtcned morals as upon rigid stern rules AS an Illus
traton: II convey Mr. Batchford a lot worth Ave
thousand dollars in this city, assure the title 70 him
md IL he puts upon II q building worth thirty thou
ad dollars and ten years hence the title ails and
warrant and defend him In his possession he
nnot recover the $50 expended upon the house but
cny 'ne so,o ,ooo WIN interest Some men would think
ere was not much good in that rule and yet the
reason assigned for it is that in the carly settlement
tais city man might have sold piece Of and for 5000
upon which buildings worth fifty millions might after.
ssrds be erected and no could bear the burden OF
fiiure ol title IL such aud therefore the rule il
% recover IN action only what is paid with interest upon
Or If contract with Mr Weed for horse for which
an TO pay him $500 o-morrow, and contract with Mr.
bkAtehford 70 sell hrm the horse Monday next for
s.,pt0, and If tomorrow Mt Weed declines 10 fulfil the
c1rt.sct and deliver the horse, canno. sue for tho
40 difference between the price receive that
was to 2.ss & or oi e 'ny for ne
Upon the sapi above the sseo agreed 10 pay
hsa reasoning win hepaelyes mint say thut should
ave the benefit or my outside conlTce ,.l Mr. Batch
fcl ana yet the law viii not give il TO ne Nog, Do
ss anderstand that in this claim against tho city M
cysc had hight to put aose guns il the contract
price do not know whether IL is very material, the
Sasis on which this claim ade ap ii sou shall be
s"tscd from the evidence of Mr. keeue aal Nir Brooks
snst the gun Was actually worth the price at which they
adj agreed TO seh to the government because then the
Price ixed in The contract Nita the government becomes
wholly inlmaterio This SLin Was made Up by tah!ng
these guns that in the process of r1anula.ture
afla the state in which they we're esHlan nc the cost
~ completing them, and deGuct.ng tho expense which
r~o,i.d be required 10 compete diem fron The ra,a
embraced on A.
understand the evidence in this case that claim could
~ be sustained, and If the case 10 recover
Ea-t rom the Corporation should 20 Obliged to saw 10
y0a that Mr. Opdyke had valid claim against TIE Cor
pSrnton for the royaity on those guns nor had Nr
ErcNs any claim on Mr.. opdyke Mr FGrlco For no
ro;aty at all because by tho written contIact between
he parties the royalty not earned vac it due
.afii the guns were compile cd and Delivered TO tho
united States governncnt Mr rroohs himself swore
rp9r the stand cannct Sec therefore upon any view
ssis az may BE- taken OF This maitc that tAis CAIN Of
t.c1shed o. q legal claim against the Corporation.
Mr. Evarts-lt was S2l eco
The Court-s2i ,oeo Of whatever II may be- This
Eads me 10 another question; the claim the part Of
iae plaintiff that this rule of dainages right that
eey had right from the Corporation those
guns complete less the cost Of finishing them do not
understand that 20 be the rule Yet have doubt that
competent ia presenting the claim and giving the
syi1cIee to give that evidence in asceraning the value
OF those guns The owners Of the gun factory ent-
q - recover the actual damages which they sustained
70 ing their property The great question In conro-
vac l., how are TO get at Us value? Mr. Evarts
MS sou must get at it by estimating the lock sight
barrel, stock, &c That Is way. The point be 90.
e rs the value of the property. Yet when you seek
tne value OF property IL the process Of anufac Ure
4 very difficult TO apply this rule to it, Take a wagon
Naeei vi all the spoLes in it but one ard the rim all
ssady to be put on, what is the Wheel worth? If YOU
vero 70 sell the hub and the spoes in it man and
INC ieioes 70 another and the tire to third probably
srnd not fetch much soi in that way. Stock IN
worked upon could be estimated IN that way but when
you come tn the guns in the process OF manufacure
@ere inuch labor has been bestowed upon the barrel
in the process of finishing so much uon the stock
Gc, Is dililcult TO what tho
81 rsied would be worth when thrown into the rarke;
Trcbaby they could hardly be said TO have mark value
let, AS means Of ascertaning what they were
~r-th, entertain no dofbt al I'll. that it compe.
TO put in evidence what they would be worth when
z-.shed and n0lid be the cost of 1uishing not
at the party woud be entitled 70 recover damages
any profit which might accrue out of the anor Of finish
tag them because do not think he could The rule
sid down In the elementary books that where article
u In such state that it is not ordinarily marketable
Soo Ray then show what II Is worth by showing the
oSs; its production You will perceive that the rule
Son which the plaintiff claims he made up this
aSainst the Corporation not adopted by Mr.
3iunt at all. But he resorted TO another theory
And one certainly much more dangerous-one whicb,
ss oil wrong If he adopted it; and that ascertain
saAt the whole outlay in this establishment was
tAo claim he was satisfied that the claim Just That
Mas more wrong than the other mode. Ii only shows
MAJ bay men are not always safe judges of rule OF law
sp determining such question. Now ought to say to
You tina. although this defendant ray have succeeded in
tioYing you that Mr. 0pdyke did get up this claim
against the Corporation IN larger thar he en-
riied to, yet 1t docs not follow that Mr. opdyke
sss dishonest in regard to it, This libel must
- justified as broadly as It was made, literally
N the In which It Is charged; and II it
charges Mr opdyke With fraudulently making
ap claim against the Corporation and swindsg IT, per.
forming that which swnd,cr would do then must be
u'tdcd as broadly and 10 justify this part of the libel
S,,I must come TO tho conclusion that the claim
ade a. dishonesty in fact, and that he believed and
when e adopted this rue suggested by Jones and
carried out by Ar. keenc, that IL all wrong, and
~,cia result in larger claim against the Corporation
they liable him for That is question for
yoa determine, whether you believe that Ar Opdyke
asd IL making this claim nnd presenting il in this
nfm, knew that he was presenting lalse Claim
ami practising iTaudulentiy against the Corporation
Kou 20 det rinne that question in the light Of the
sv.dence in the case; and yoa VIII bear in mind
IA Mr. Jones that Il honest way Of making
- the claim ari Mr. aeene swoars that he regarded 1t
Just and equitable mode Of making up the claim;
sd Mr. opiyke sNears the Same thing. You will say
3ca the e,ieei 20 how IL -, anu whether you believe
In Nir opdyfc did make up clam fraudulenllv
Al rst the Gu ration to ,et more damages Of them
~ ened TO, whether you believe simply
-.lst he did as many men 10, basipg their claims a
WONG 'c - damages There ~ another point of this
abel - wch aile ent rlis applies aud where Il my
be taut hf. Cpdyke jfcio q member of the
La1.tilg mlttce such claims thai be sat
- That comnittec auditing lii claim, con.
eealuS tae fact That he was tho principal
sty inter sed and by that carried this swndle
15ndth have ~ Acitaon n saying that TOR point,
Tigh Il the most serious ~ all tncsc chargc regard
" is hlsllons 10 not think there is any doubt about
sGa. u means. 60 not tnnk there IL anything leit for
~ .rprciaon in regard to IT, IL charges Mr opdyko
LCaid o supervisors, charg. hia w,h sitting and audit
ing this cam pd charges him with concealng the fact
saa no was tic owner OF the claim, and thcs t alleges
.G1 there was great swadic in tue claim That say,
Is iibollous The next question Is, Is il jusii-
1ad ny inc evidence N this cases That l. a
question u fact, II there H. any dispute abou,
tie evidence, whether II Is justified not question OF
Et which belongs To you. IL there is no dispute on tho
question Of tn evidence then IL is duty to charge
you 10 ind II undcfelded The first part OF II suppose
- wholly unirlc. The Mayor In virinc or his office is
s--gJict0 member Of this committee Mr. Hutchipgs
s1 swear that he was member Of the committee, hut
-pn nation be sid he did not know whether
ea vas member or not; that h. sometimes there,
sad some imes rot take i 10 be very clear that djrs
not aud could not b. menbcf 0f the committee
ast II he ~ 'ctO member II jhe committee that
auch of the libel may be justified upon that. rlhe
cr RI rrcccelcd 10 quite from the testimony the ev
tsnce that Mayor opdkc did net net member Of The
esmmittDc, and TINT IN the action upon this claim he
ssow.a b. lntercs. in Il and lett before II acted
rpoal ihak gen,icmf n THAI you Will End that lhis
Fa " the loel, which charges Mayor opdyke Win being
aemyrr % tnis committee sitting upon this claim,
ing H. coccang the fact that he was intars ted in the
the Hoard Oi unsusained b.