New-York daily tribune., 1866-01-11
COURT OF COMMON PLrAs-rRIAL Tpns--JAy. 10
Befor. Jus,ice pALr.
FISpISG yOSTY-GOOD LUCK 4 MfSFORIUSE.

Fr lssl G'eruou at. W ~. N1Ves.
! The plaintiff last June picked up 800 bill Oh the
Greenwich Bank aud toos i to her iend Rose hlri 10 in
qu-~ about IL. Ro,s Al ard too. % various places 10 inquire
was pronouu.e good Unfortunately in 1850 Greenwich
sayogs Bans bad drawn check lot +5oo which was paid
akind wich the b,us hed bu, 70 Tao porter os. the
bank eaqeaiy recovered Al d c,c ed All The ros Of the
sne aud from time 60 time aier the lapse Of over Yea.
identified by tie officers of tie bank Rose Aiar was DE-
station House Mr. Hswe the cashier oupnyins her
Identity the bill There she stated how she nad obtained t.
aud ainih ao lrrc,tcd. Mr.. lawes. name being
entered - the complainant, The plaintiff and Rose Alsri
to Jefferson MARKET and 1t being found that no
slys they would be- d.chIrgejai They however
drtinei at the -tation- House til the next day when Nh
Have. sent ior aud procured Their dchsrs" tof this
In prs0neui the plinih DTn.s an action of damages
Counsel for the diondans while stating that suspicion
n honesty Of s e eoneSds1 shs, here hee h.l
been probable FOR the aud that any rate the de-
the Preien Of the bark Or , officer. who had pefh.p sI
ceerd discretion IN their wish 20 uurave the former loss
Counsel forthe pat sed that the offence lad bcen
committed At all su three years before the arrest.
and hascoro outawed the Justification FOR problbe
Thi. Judce dec ncd do and charged that .u.tn
the derns, Of probable Il not tst any
crime shond huso been actually committed, but only tha,
there should have been such circumstances would have
induced nj TO think rs duty citizen to arrest
the person lie cited yurous in support Of this rcna
the nceus of the question between the rights of the
is though fths done lie would be Tcspou
sihr for tie gct- oi the officers.
The Jury rendered verdict Tor plaintiff or 5000.
Thoul.s Giileu Tor plliIuh Mr. Nssh for deioudmt
tciors JUDGE tARDOIp
LiAHILITIrS or MAhSUAL-A MODEL CHARGF.
Th.op us j. Blooilor Michael Doody--Ihis was
the taking and conversion of of hss and
other goods clnord by . pautr ard 'lken by the defend
ant The derndar who Is Ma. hal OF OF the District
Courts justified The taking under execution in favor OF
NcC artny oetins " arnor OF the pani. THE evidence
very conflicting. raa judge charged subsantiily as
fol ows:
II were hat tho custom, 90 discuss hr evi-
,ncc the might BE- only conveying 20 the I'm.
preston IL has made NY mind sd infringing your duty
-h4 therefore content myself sooy hs stnug 10 you the
point issue und g. legal bearing. The eiriu IN this
'c that ne s'Ird md removed the good. IA question froa
store of the plain M sss.ro the llh rudcr the
cuou iu favor hrt bfty. The gunrn' mlds
The ?2i II y0u iud the levy mad, stated by the dc.
f'udin You will hnd i0r him. The pliu.h- testimony
shows tlei tes" goods "a tho tire 2d II YOU
fn that M then tie defendant Is iniarn and YOU
viii Ind los tie pantd Ilrr- /, sputr. believe
Tho value Of the good. md osoc II YOU fd Tor the plain.
t you wi hnd verdict Tor sJJ! 6 the value Of the goods
and niei".i.
jury rendered verdict for plaintiff or s,.:Ci.