New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-20
SUPERIOR CoURT-TRIAL TEmL-Noy. 10 Before Ju
BARBOUR.
A CURIOUS CASE OF LOVE AND MONEY.
Innrintfn Snhnnitf oct Emil Hnrfnrfh


Henrietta schmitt agt. Emil Hurforth
The plaintiff IN this caae brings SUIT tor the value
5000 Russian ihaers which she says she lent TO the defend
She has it seems four other suits against the same de-
PENDANT being for breach Of promise OF marriage another
for divorce On beng asked her name she a sns u nov
whether Il Henrietta Schm or Henrietta Huriorh
which the Court would direct her to assume She
stated also that The defendant had I'd repaid ber
Under the peadDgs the Court refused evidence as 70 any
oanng the Il appeared further that about the time OF
this repayment had executed release OF all claims against
defendant bot denied that she had ever understood the
release DO release OF this claim and appeared on o'her
testimony that a tie time II was drawn the claim i9f te
breach OF promise of marriage being discussed and that
the attorney drew the release drew il IN reference TO set
The defendant denied the receipt Of the money and avOwed
that the executed on hs payment OF 81 @
atons Their evidence direct contradiction
The joy sys yFs sf S weoI I ' oT defendant
Before Justice JOINS
TIE POWER OF ONE PAETsER TO BIND The RIRN-THE
STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
Wm +. Ruuk and Another ag Leon Gieaume and others
The plaintiffs seek to balance OF account amounting
20 ta1 ~ arising according 10 their statement nnder the o
loving In January lseo Gharies Glesae
bill o. goods Inc plaintiffs after making inquiries refused
10 sell them 10 him but being referred 20 the defendants hm
and having told by the defendant Geaume that they
Gilleaume and charged them 20 the defendants
On this statement the Court dismissed the complaint as to the
other defendant on the ground that such an assent by one part
OF debt not for partnership purposes and
By the plaintiffs TO be for such purposes could not
bind the other partner though possibly Right Mr. Gieaume
The defendant also moved dismiss the complaint on the
that the transaction according patlHs
meut undertaking pay the debt Of another which
of frauds should have been N writing The
denied the motion holding proper question for the
Jury whether sale the defendant or 10 the
The defendant then testified that hc never directed or con
senied the goo should be charged TO him but that
transaction JOINT adventure between the plaintiffs
and his son
The Jury found verdict fo the defendant Ira D. Warren
for plaintiff II. T. KnOI, for defendant
Before Justice JOINS.
TIE CITY PUNISHED PoR TIE NEGLIGENCE OF ITS EN-
PLoYEEs g.
Daniel r Kimbal agt. The Mayor &c
The plaintiff suit asks damages for accident the re-
suit of negligence the part OF the city employees On dark
night last May stumbled lamp post eft lying on the
ground In Fyeighthst between First and Second and
which IL appeared had been lying there three months breaking
his leg For this and the consequent suffering the jury gave
him a verdict for 5000. ., 1880.
w L Dickinson for plaintiff Mr.. Hacke for defendants
CASE OF ASSAULT AND BATrERY
Iou Okmi AIT Joseph Yellnick The plaintiff in this
claims that he the house Of the defendant 20 remove
some articles le former tenant and asking for them
was struck and kicked and badly used The defendant denies
the hut he ordered hr TO leave and on his
refusing only the necessary force TO remove him -Four
on side directly cOnadcted each other but the
Jury gave verdict for plaintiff for go Aahon for plaintiff
C. Spencer for defendant