New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-10-25
SUPERIOR CoURT-TRnL TEES-Ocr. &-Before Justice
HgCTMBSr SUIT.
OfShes agi Kumpf.

" ~. r. IA
Mrs. 0'Shea bringtsjectment for strip OF lana
running diagonaly from Thirty ahss between second anu
GsS o. ts c 20 y the Old private soe called
closed by the act Of M authorizing the laying out Of the CITY
the plaintiff The defendant says the centor Of the street wss
west Of The witness on he part OF the plaintiff wss
and two witnesses who had the posts Of the fence
On The par, Of the defendant they called witness who set hs
building according the line Of the posts and had the ground
surveyed but this Is in part cOntradicted. r..
The jury found for the psintia A n s. Thompson for
plaintiff Moses Ely for defendant
DUTY OF RANKS DEPosIToIs OF NOTES FOB COLLECTION
This case has been tried before and owing in the
charge the former trial sent back for rerd grows
These notes were Endorsed and through mistake or aooi
dent they presented and protested In PSP
notes but some s6 He nov claims that the Bank BY its own
negligence caused this loss and asks that IL be compelled 70
eenco on their part and that there was deceit or
on part Of the plaintiff as 70 the residence Of the maker Oh
were not paid anything for the collection Of the notes they
bound any contract to protest or present the no
to the plaintiff and second that tSef whole duty hand
hs nS' Sone and thai their liability then ceased They
ther claim that the whole suit arose out OF pque
dislike Of the plaintiff for them growing out OF their refusal 70
Tho Court commented the difference OF testimony De-
tween the parties The name OF the maker was egDe On ine
notes and both parties agreed that something was said be-
tween discount clerk aud the plaintiff or George Ayrau
about the residence Of King the maker when was brought
dence and Ayraut told him did not know Ayrnut says
that residence and could not have told him be dd
not IT, of these notes he Endorsed George Az
raut-he other wrongly George Ehrnut" The question
is did the Notary where these could be foundf III
no did not know from the note itself where W King was
what would be the next common and ordinary source
Of informatoni Why first TO go TO the bank and then
dorsers charged-that Is to George Aytaut' Nov
wasn't Il his duty TO go 10 them and inquire where
King vas 70 be oundf IL Is said be did ordinary
and duo diligence the bank and told By the
Cashier that Ayrau Eyed In Poughkeepse That WA tho
first note The second had George Ehraut with Ayrant
written beneath IT, The remarks apply 20 H. Now Il Is
Tor the Jun say whether he exercised oil due diligence or
/. negligent For his negligence the Banks negligence
The common and ordinary rue Is that II note ie for COT
lection with bank they obligation 10 present It,
and by her negligence they fail to charge the ndo they
liable for the damages that may be Sustained Doti
part OF the plaintiff may have excused them IL Is
for say whether there any The defendants claim
that tho plaintiff guilty Of negligence In NOT oommuncat
ing residence OF the maker do NOT think this was neoes
sy bo, the plaintiff testfes that he did The s
dcnce Of King them II you find In favor OF the plain
tiff you will find for him sso5 ca
Verdict for plaintiff accordingly
Mr. TAFT for plaintiff Mr.. Dyot for defendant
SPECIAL TERM-Oct 2.-Beforo MIR. Justice h0hHL
Edward c. johnson agt. Jas Muloy-Case settled
Before Mr.. Justice BARBOUR.
Knox AIT. Bangs.-Furthot papers required .
The People &C. sgt Martin HAnz-Moton granted with
| out costs - .
wIlet Seaman ct al sg Henry A KeatAg ct AL-MOuOu
Adam Ferguson sgt. NJ 7. REORGANIZATION granted and
| cause referred. &c
Frederick NJ Peyser agt August DECENTRALIZATION denied
| with Is costs.
James Doyine agt. Sarah Jamcs-MOton denied.