The New York herald., 1866-10-12
QUESTION As TO THE RIGHT or A COMMISSION MERCHANT
TO DELEGATE MS AUTHORITY
supreme Courf--Spccinl Term.
Before Judge Barbour

supreme NOurt-Sprcui TERM.
Before Judge Barbour
Conscntia Rosscog rs. Jdwcs W. Seymour.
tou was brought $1,000 the vsue Of certain
jewelry consigned by the plaintiff the defendant in
New Orleans. In 1880, to sell commission and which,
Il Is now alleged, defendant converted to his
and defrauded the plaintiff. An order Of arrest ".
granted by Judge Robertson in August last, and the de-
fendant who here visit from New Orieans was
arrested and held TO bail in 0oo The
before the court motion made by defendant to dis
charge the order Of arrest and eSonerhc the bail The
defendant for that purpose read certain afdavts IN
which he admitted tho value OF the goods and that they
were consigned him for sale in $780, but ne says that
he sold 600 worth Of such goods for confederate
money in 1851 which confederate money no has In
his possession and that the balance OF such goods he
gavs to Mr. Church to take TO Mexico and se aud that
sad Church went 20 Mexico in December, 1850,
but the defendant never him again until May,
500 when Church back 10 New Orleans and told
defendant that he had been wayald In Mexico near
were produced on behalf or defendant stating that
Church had always boue good character and that the
fact Of bis leaving New Orleans with goods TO SELL and
his long absence and his return with tho statement OF
his being robbed werc well known in New Orleans But
the defendant slro svcars that he did not believe
church story about the robbery and was rong TO have
him arrested had not his counsel told him the burden OF
proof 10 Church not having boon robbed would eas on
Tho plantr contended that the defendant, hal no au-
shority 70 employ subagent 70 send ihe goods 20
never gave plaintiff any account OF the goods their
proceeds; that in 1909 plaintiff sent Mr. waach with q
power Of New Orleans ~ get tho goods the
money from defendant Mr. waach swears that In
Is02 the defendant sd he had not sold any d the goods
bat that they were all lover the Union lines"
u place few miles from New Or
ieans and never sd . wort about Church
having taken them 20 Mexico. Defendant after
could NJ, give sny Of the goods yet church
had some OF them IN Mexico and he had 20 vat 10 hear
from Church what salcs he had made From the time
or writing this letter s62l defendant wpts again
account of the goods; that plaintiff tired 70 catch
fendant here 1854 but defendant svAded the sheriff and
went back New Orleans; that defendants property
Of his hands and Is In the possession Of DEFENDANTS
wife who holds Judgment over hip
Dsfendrnt urged that The custom OF the Jewery trade
allowed him 70 employ an agent, and " the agent WAS
robbed he eronented also that he could not send
the 81 900 worth of Con fcdersfs money 70 plaintiff In
1857 because General Butler forbade any Confederate
money being paid from person 10 another
Plaintiff brought a1hdavis from Jcwclry merchants
here prove that there custom in that trade per-
mitting the delegation OF the factoris authority TO
responsible for the goods In every case; also thai
the defendant . factor dI cycdys, ~ he
10 endorse all notes be received for the goods ana
got hfecn per cent for all saics; that the con-
gnment 70 defendant was personal tTass NOT 70 ps
of the goods for unlawful currency which Was un
known 1890 when the goods delivered, ana he
had that be bad converted that part Of the proceeds ~
not sending the Confederate money 10 plaintiff IN ls02
when II had value, and in keeping u until was
worthless
The court said that he had no doubt the defendant
authorized to sell for Confederate money, but there was
question whether he ought not 10 have delivered
when demanded Of him In ls62 by Mr.. Wsiacn, tne
plantiTs agent Also that there doubt sne &C.
fendsnt could employ servant In New Orleans 70 sell
ths goods cod that servant ~N rcbbsd bs weuId -