The national Republican., 1867-11-19

CIRcUIr CoURr-Ckisf JuJiiee Carter. .-This
sonTt Yesterday tr.s..etss the fallewias bu,ias..
is,; a',o' ,,, po;y IsSs%'pMs A. for pIsIo;,
a motion TO vaeate the Judgment In this case.
selduer h hsljn.r VS. Joha ?. Wagmau. Brad.
ley. IT,, for plaintiff r. Davis for defendant
This 10 an aetoa to recover from WAgmAn rent for
one months occupancy Of store In the Washington
Buildings, on Penusylvania avenue, and the value
Of two plate glass windows, alleged to have been
broken during his occupancy. II appeared that Mrs.
Eva seldnsr leased, At nrs portion at 900, and
Afterwards ths whole Washington building at sl5,.
900 per snuum; that while she held this lease she
intermSrried with Lewis seldnsr; that the seldners
husband and wife, leased OF these stores to WAg
man for nine months. During Wagmap's tenantcy,
he took Mundsr into eo.partnership, and Afterwards
but before the close OF the lease, sold out to him.
and started his own business elsewhere. In the
meantime, the owners Of the building Messrs, Murray
4 slumes) had given the seldners formal notice TO
quit with view 10 Increased rent and the Seldners
gave notice OF increased rent to the under tenants
Munder desired to stay one month longer, till he
could make arrangsmeuts for removal The Sold
ners alsge that they refused at hrst to allow Nun
der to remain, and only yielded because Wsgman
became himself bound therefor. wagman denies
that he ever became bound for the months rent
and the testimony upon the OF his relation to
the new lease was conflicting 1t also appsarsd that
during WagmAn's tensnt:y, two plate glass win
dows, each valued At si2 were broken, the nrs be.
Ing blown out BY the wind, aud the other smashed
by the Iouayes.
Mr.. Bradley eontsndsd that the terms OF Mr. wag-
man's lease were to be considered as running into
the new month, and that the tenant was bound to
return house In the state In which he received It,
he was also responsible for the broken glass.
Mr.. Davis denied that the lease continued over
when Mr.. Wsgman was not In occupancy, and when
II was shown that new renting had beea made, In
which the utmost stretch Of the proof was to show
an inadmissible parol contract OF Mr.. W. to DO re.
The Court charged the Jury that the point nrst In
issue was the one months rent sought to be Ieeov-
cred from wagman. wagmaa was not liable there
for as oontinuing oeeup'er aftsr the close OF his
lease, for the testimony showed new contract he
was not liable on the new contract uoless he wa,
direct party thereto or had agreed In orhfng to be
responsible; for the Statute OF frauds made void
evory verbal contract Of q third person to be re-
.poasible for Anothers debt. As to the broken WIN
dows, the Court did not hold that the tenant was In
surer against the elements and therefore " the Jury
believed that one Of the wiudows was blown out BY
the wind without the fault Of defsndAnt he was not
to bs made rssponsible for Il such aeeidenis were
sAlt doubt upon this doctrine, bat II was the law.
The jury rendered . verdict Of az (cost OF one
glAss) for the plaintiff.
1874 Simpson Eaton vs.. W. \. Snow Go.
Fuller for plaintih Jones and Ashford for defend
This Is the same case which has been reported
twice In these columns 1t comes down to this court
again from the court In general term, that court
PLAINTIFF, in New York. sent goods 70 Putnam, in
0eorsetown the PLAINTIFF claim as their pgent, but
the dsfsndAnts'ay as co.partner patnsm con
vsyed the goods TO defendants as trustees OF certain
Of his Baltimore creditors and after notice Of plaiu
hn's claim defendants transmitted Proeaeds OF sale
Of the goods to he Baltimore creditors, the question
turning upon the fact whether or not Putnam was
partner Of the plaintiff.
Mr.. Ashford asked the court to instruct the Jury
that upon the whole evidence submitted BY the
PLAINTIFF they show no right to recover.
MT fuiler prayed suudry Instructions reoitng GER
tain facts and alleging th upon proof OF such fact.
the PLAINTIFF were snttled to verdict, and argued
At some lens tn thereon.
The Court charged tho jury that Putnam was the
agent Of Simpson Eaton, and that the oaly ques-
ton for them to settle was the amount whiou the
plAintiG should recover. This Ium the proof estAb-
lshed to bs el, ,723 with interest from January la
1865. The jury found a verdict accordingly,
ALL ABOUT A NAME.
$3.50. II, o, d, Banks a Co., VS.. Barney G. Major.
This action arises upon a Psnnsyl1lniA Judgment,
aud the summons thereon issued 10 Bernard U ma
jor Mr.. Thompson for Major plead mo such re-
cord, " and that he was not Barney Q; Major The
declaration was thereupon amended TO set forth
"Bsrnard Crook Ms jor summoned As barney U, Ma
joT, " whereupOn MsjoT pleads that he was never
summoned As Barney Q. Major Mr. MAthpgly de-
murrei to this plea.
Mr. Thompson oontsnded that The plea thus made
was reasonable, and not subject to demurrer.
Mr. MGttingly had demurred because the Issue
was MINISTERIAL.
The Court said that the plea did not traverse the
alton, and the demurrer was well taken, and
Thompson took leave to amend.
The court then, 81 81 o'clock adjourned until
this morning.
e