New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-08-13

rOUHT OF COMMON BLEAn--'f Al 4hhh-Alclo4e
judges DAILY BRADY aud CA@DC2o
eteptcn T. Can agt Jies BrO0As aud Lrlsus Brooke
DAILY. J.-The plaintiff brought hs action ioI
he di.ssllon Of copatnershp existing between himself
ard he TA Evsss daily newspaper and Tor
The taking dining that De bad interest Of
onesx Of two-th and upon tho defendant APPLICATION
twas ordered 'hattbe point III dispute should DO TIED 10y
The ra was long one and ills volume Of more than so
kct matter. Great latitude allowed To re defendants
spon the Otho pliDG he IN the ex
By the admission ~ large amount OF testimony much O.
der Tho IliHifs exception. consisting Of newspaper ex
anil ~ witnesses relating 20 the
speculation the plaintiff stocs his management
- the money article I'm The Fyprfs and there was an exen.
,ve O., he books and business
tons II the Newspaper extending tho whole time II
Csrkts with IT, period q more than seven
years That attention paid nv the july to the testimony
enrrg whole invests CATION. Tire pettna and suggestive
questions mt by them especial dotns the OF
TIE books o. account aud IN Ieqe TO detail n ne bsirsS
management the paper exll6l 80 much Weisenee ana
ptscte business b. WEDGE ia I" a. induced l 1F rai1e
u make especial reference 20 tte attention they bad lovn.
20 the intelligence han esred by their inquiries anI 90
that doubted whether better ~ clua nave oeen OuAo iT
the discharge che ccty imposed % 10 taem.
progress Of tie e embiaciis exceptions 90 tie ai--
o. t'e rejection 4 -esmo s. " 70 ho T4nf OF o.
y tne op.o- =" W! ~. T 49, a. & lt,iesrt nj no use
eephon 10 be found in my notes no, N ta9se OF any
rapher 7. was 70 the o. declaration sde by Ce
70 bis attorney, Mr. Bangs, which from ny familiarity Win
ths Tues Of evidence would have supposed could rot A.ve
admitted under exception, bot for Tie fact thai It was ne
impression OF The counsel Tor TIE Defendants nat f
and allowed IN difference 70 Their better Iecoeci ~
gsrdug therefore, testimony enron ousy rhni uN1tf
RIcepton ire cue, ton arises whether ne rec p Oh
ritues IN lie his sufficient reason ior 0feeAS 'e
This was an eguity ST. in which TIE defendants were
sntied, matter u right 70 wal " JoFy, bnt ID N.L
Court tire exercise II Its dscr uon directed OFT an
ssse new II as Granted with SIC facility IN
ali fr tie reasons which would be sufficient - "h
When an Issue Of fsct joined in action OF lev tie
a.. rr N moi ned L. fnai and the Judgment T
r1vo "a 10.
has deemed important HAT Courts should 4 hAch
,T1a enforce he ope that tie gt IS " parties 90 De
tcIermined strictly by legal evidence and TO mo.: eccu
OF enforcing ~ Is O. order new tfaI II inp
she party COMPLAINING Hence % has been he'd DO LAS state
that irh vii be granted IN ar ao,l 10 s@ WHtIe
srrOneou@ evidence is submitted uhaef tR'po' l,'s
shown that verdict affected ly T. IIat 90 vi
party excepting not pobsby impr wed ~
g. but must be shown beyond doubt that Ae eol' "o'
sA xSt Sss as cc Han R. lo elliot as Mead wend.
1876; CLARK agt Voice, - ID, ~ aFIlers b-A aB ~.
Geld "a 3D.. 40; iaIk ag CTau1al Bno D.J,i D.eS
AZ Ausworti id Oh, BOYLE agt. Coleman, Is ld ~ "
hsms aet Fitch u Ny $50; Eroen agt Lorfiafd ~ ID -!
This in most eass It % des 70 SHOW" az u - sng , s ,
kAd upon De jury and is o- this reason that
sI Se Vf tra Marqasn8 ae weJb is Johns g. a
the Manhattan Cow OH But even upon II pr s IRE
also been cid that evidence vas objected % anew
srSupSs ff believing the merits Lad been fay and
bry tried, and that injustice had been Done Ii osS
DepsJster agi Columbia INSURANCE Co, Cal 20 ara
Judge Wright in Forrest agt forrest % \, u, j.,
that trial must be granted 0fc'use evidence was
roceyad that ought to have Dsea IesG.e Iof maj
Is 10 materially Of evidence found % nave been IN
.roperly admitted or rejected when satisfied
hsye been the with without suca evidence
sSTsement in The Eeei.h courts In the Comon Pleas
trial vii rot be granted fr the ADHESION 81 inpfopef
testimony evidence IN the case 70 wart
she verdict Judgment the evidence Improperly
admitted ought TO have no efee, Doe ag' Taylor b5ney
land Moore While the Kings Bench has refused AFR
mature follow the rule OF the Common Pleas
.nJ declare will not undertake such
question they what effect tho eydeaee cav have
erant new trial where inadmshle evidence ba been
eeyed under exception that might the ruso OF ey
denee upon trials less carefully considered Crease agt
Barrett Tyrroh AS: DE Rutzan sgt farr Ad and e.
50 The rule Of The kings Bench hss hteIio peer tss pre-
the Union the rule Common Pleas after full examna
suit Of experience mas adapted for the at
Of the ends Of Justice Hanblett Sgt hsm9iet
Eew-Hsmp 1885, Deerfed agt Northwood 10 d sJ; FRINGE
sgt shepl ard sPick, 49, Thonp'on sgi Latlop 81 H.
GO Thorndss sg BosSO g S sSaShsT5 sS Sg Steel
man sgt Steelman, Han, 90 Barrlngtgn ag'; Aesoi
Bat the strict which been applied Ia Courts Of Law
has never been Courts Of Equity Where trial
s5 tas, at tbs trs simply for the Information 4 the Court
With ultimate decision Of the case rests snd II h not
therefore necessarily conclusive The Court Mr. Greesy
IN his work upoU Equity Evidence if it think fl make
no Se o. tes Vese U 11A on the pa OF tho
ucge mistakes to the admission Of evidence the Court
sSence which il sound and il nav either send
t another iuy or decide it in teeth Of verdict
Breezy Upon 6arl E u sSsig S GS1 E ES? A.
verdict had been TIE reverse Of what is II viii not
Tor that reason send the back for another trial
hct Ia clearly wrong something which satisfies, he C9ai'
hat il cannot be right. Northam Bridge Road Co.
All London and Southampton Rail Co, II simmons
ga The test in every is the satisfaction OF TIE con
science Of Court and ills STANDARD AZ MT Greeshy has
remarked being Itself so vague the rules equity for grant
Ing necessarily indefinite The only general
rule obtained from examination OF the cases that
the complained Of the admission OF i'm
nisdireecn the part Of tbs Judge another Trial VIII
ssnes together and eonsse1 II with The judges
lknks that injustice has been done by the committed
Furn Russ l4i Baxter agt Ray Russ 60; wincheses
agt WsuchApe i'd +46 asa Sancy sgt Wade. SIM 595;
o. ID a. OConDOr sgt CoOk vss. $50; wsrdsn Of ST.
Fauls agt Morris 3D. 1865 1872 Pemberton ag Pemberon.
Mcs s SS'ts L. so latham ss %s ha''3tR
Nyl /; Apthorpe sgt. Thomas Paige 49, Muocs agt
AIT f Ea.:. Is Bs ar BANKING c.
klsse Green c. 3li Lyes agt Iyles Hels c., 7e; Gil
ss sf BARN smss S Forest SsS ss Forrest
Applying this 20 the present there IL no ground
%, new Ia as all nat wa, gwen IN eSaenes ~ pIGEs
established and Affirmed In every material particular after
yard by testimony Of James Brooks hmse so that the
evidence could had injurious effect upon the result
operated any periodically 10 the defendants This 10
aver the Courts OF law IN which new tria VIII not be
GRANTED facts clearly proved BY competent testimony
"a The ury have found in accordance with them though In
stage Of improper evidence may have been
9a, a. WSergs Geo Dee, PAT IL 20; Prince sgi
shsphsTd Pick i7s Thompson ags katSr0p 10; o "a
rps bunting sg Allen Harr 299; Seelman agt SieelmaD
lid co. Darlington agt Eesbitt Lincoln and Marsh p
relied upon written paper Exhibit C. signed By James
brooks IA which declared be the owner Of two
aaTy 1855 20 sell 10 plaintiff Of his interest IN the
paper thereby reducing his interest to hall for the
sf and which o. 500 James Brooks admitted