New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-06
CITTL COURTS.
TuR OPENING oP THE rERM-ELgoTIoS DAY.

an l. aa ' i lrncd over election day smni
Part IL Of the Common les pG 5 iIt G Ss
CouIt The Courts viii resume business aei inc eo'''"
| uNITpD STATES DISTRICT OOURT-Noy. 5.-Before
Judge BETS
| AN OPINION BY JUDGE DBrTs ON THB QUESTION or
WHAT CONSTITUTES DELIVERY OF oAhoo BIZ
VESSEL. -, -.
| Charles Partridge ct al egt Inc sup ID" Au' nv
The libel was, filed, IN this case, May III, looo,
againi tho ship Tackle &c. alleging hst tho
Isians named in the said libel dds1the month OF March
e ort 81 New Orleans bound TO York and undor the
Command OF her mnstcr Prudhammcl y. padl' o n u
be WNonpare brand manufactured nj 81 LOUIS by John
Towle all OF which appeared upon The heads OF ean OF su
barrels and which was to be carried ana ~ ~ 10
b. then delivered TO the bean or their assigns they Phg
nn oecnsoned that the master signed four bills Of
ading TENOR dated March 49, 1869 IL Is further etcrred
board proceeded Herewith The conveyance Of the said
master the port Of NewYork, where she safely arrived
and offered to to the said ship and her agents the g
and pmago upon said -four and demanded he delivery tce
of 10 lem such consgncc but that only 49, barrels OF the
said -four have TO the bans and the balance
sno u bc"n SrlIverrS othonpb frequently demanded
the M Of June thereafter James T. Tapcott appeared ~
said cause part Of said vessel the Ben Adams ana
himself and his coowncr put In his answer under oath TO
the libel fled above stated in this action and AYERS hat me
attachment thereof aud arc the and bona de
thereof and the day filed their answer 10 the said
tho ship under bin aing described In the libel and an
ncxe to the but denies all knowledge as 70 any o. inc
the banis TO their proofs thereof The claimants ADMIT may
the Ben Adams shipped at IN ne month OF sac
1865 while engaged in shipping general ship general
cargo -four for the port Of New York and as part OF such
100 barrels Of which there by the Of said
vessel bill Of hiding copy OF which annexed 20 INC an
admitted the claimants have knowledge TO any Of the
in the second article OF the libe set forth ~,
That tho ARRIVAL Of the said vessel at the port OF NOW
York according the usage and custom Of That port due and
reasonable notice Of her arrival Of the place Of discharge Of the
eho
Of -four referred TO in the libel given to the several
consgnecs Of cargo on board said vessel including inc Of
GLIDING said -four in accordance with tho usage and custom
OF vessels engaged the coasing trade landed and dis
charged the usual snd customary manner from sad vessel TO
Wit Pier No 10 East River and then and from thcnccfor;h
landed nj tho risk Of the respective consgnees cre
Of and who eupon In pursuance Of such notice undertook
10 remove the same and The claimants are advised ana insist
tho contract Of acightment entered into by the sail ys
sci hereto annexed thereby fully performed and dS
yercd by the ship Ben Adams 20 the hbean or that 81 bar
been delivered that the bents have sustained
damages Of zoe 90 and the claimants further
answer tho said libel in this .
Ben Adams forming part .cago there beside the
mentioned previously large additional quantity Of -four
which bill Of ang had In like manner been signed ana he
same w.s CONSIGNED 10 The hm o. Wa Sh a - 40 Te
had been discharged from said vessel and placed upon sn
wharf barrels Of -four branded Nonparci Minis OF al
bants had notice that Of this number the libel
bad taken and onrted away 40 barrels and had suffered
allowed firm OF Watts Cano Co. TO take away $50
barrel,
Tho said quantity Of -four taken by said eon.gnees re-
sptvey after had been landed She dock and notice gwen
and without any notice the said vessel that there any
tho parcel. quality marks the barrels or
the OF said vessel Of any such difference
The belinis do no, attach 70 Their be copy Of tse D o.
the ladug Of the -four placed board tho ship At The time OF
delivery bat exception Is taken the trial OF the cause
20 tho identity accuracy Of tho affixed 60 the answer by
the claimants and given IN evidence by them on the tfta IN
court The argued orally between tbs counsel jan
uay e. and subsequently submitted by them upon written
bofs March term thereafter The Court then being aeiu
/ 81 tf.e lsrn of
hearing could assign with certainty period FOR completing
The lnal ho9ring Of This one anterior 70 ae resumption Oh
low few days The uslges OF navigation and trade At all
tho important cmporums OF commerce IN the United state.
Is believed familiarity understood and well sanctioned by
| try AMI in England 10 b. substantially this
The carrier ship In transporting cTgoc OF merchandise or
special remittance freight is rot bound 20 personal ae
ton and delivery Of the commodity carried 70 hs assignee or
cousguer but rs arrival q, the port or place o. i' dna
ton may sorc notice the time and place which delivery
vii be made Of tho consignment and that mode o. delivery
vii b antamount IN relation 10 eoastins or anmssons W
hG bis legation In respect 20 the clrragc IN placing the
property Al the legal risk " The cOnsgnee aAsuee % Kent
SS Saa note iac eo ' Rp ana bs
fords Gre q r. ~; Curtis, Rights and Duties o. Seimen
The libel Va. aici IN The action May 10 rs The answer
ulrT - s and an oral argument bei1csa the for
srumcni in wrns was Med or The claimants submitted
10 The Court February 6 -G aul BY bclhnis March ~
anI the occupation u the time Of the Court other than
short period of recess n Midsummer IN United states causes
having priority herring prevented this coming again
% The consideration Of the Court until the closing business
VI The present term u October and the Court now upon
careful inspection Of tho and compeNy Of the written
proofs aal finding great k % precision and certainty 10
material facts obtained aud denied b the respective parties ia
relation the mo aud mode Of the delivery Of tho cargo Of
hour IN The pcadng In this cause mentioned and Tie hurried
and informal manner IN which the cargo was delivered ana as
tfbuel rendering II dubious and unsatisfactory to rely upon
the rough statements Of the accolntngs between parties gath
cred from the argument laid before the Court In summing
up the cause IN dcsltofy debate wholly unsatisfactory
! Wherefore y considered by the Court important
| ana necessary thai tAe SUBJECT matter IA question
and the uncertainty 20 tho number Of barrels OF -four trans
ported New Orleans New York and what number Of
the were actually delivered IN Kind 70 the Ibans or 70
them rendered not delivered or landed with due notice and
bcldns contained In the shipment and Assignment In the
peadngs mentioned failed 10 BE- delivered at this port to them
cargo OF -four was delivered TO the belans than
the shipping contract under which 70 was transmitted II or
red aud directed that II be referred 70 the clerks Of the Court
Commissioner TO ascertain from the proofs given the
trial Of the court and 10 report to the Court with all
scbed the bill Of adHg has been fully delivered 20 the libel
accounted for the amount has not been
the quantity quality OF the flour consigned TO the snip
Ben Adams and transported by her TO this port under the con
stated in the peadng then the referee TO report the
number and value OF The said barrels Of ogr on The arrival Of
the beants and accepted by belans and also the
Der delivered rendered to beau
| at this port aud the value OF the sauie
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT cOURT-BefOre Judge
SAALLEY
SUIT FOR DAMAGES FOR ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF CANAL
COMPANY.
Gertrude Z seldom ErcuI ag The Delaware and Hudson
Canal Company.
This case, reported in The TRIBUNE OF the 3lst
umo and in which defendants sued by pahth TO recover
reasoS Of certain lands BY her in sullivan County this
being inundated by the enlargement Of defendants canal
concluded day the jury bringing IN verdict Tor de-
| PENDANTS
SUPERIOR CoURT-TEIAL TERM-Noy. S Before JUS
tice BARBOUR
| CLAIM OF A FACTOR FOR SERVICES.
William I. Helms agt Charles f. Peine
| This action arose as follows: g. N. Zlngsen con-
aIaf.l 49,