New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-05-07
SUPERIOR COURT-GENERAL TERM-MtY 6.-Before
Justices MOSELL, GARvIN ana JOSES.
LIABILITY OF TELEGRAPH OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES


On the 10Th of August 1865 Tack Brothers 20 sent
90 the plaintiff direction TO sell 800 bbls or oil at 81 cents
per gallon. This written ny the senders on
one OF the printed forms Of the Company when requires
to insure accuracy that the sender shall have the mes
sage repeated at additional charge OF half rates The
message was received correctly IN TIC COMPANY once
here but by In ranscribng read, when dellv
cred the plaintiff 5000 IN place OF 500 The plalnu
PAID for the Dispatch S sold SS o 81 %G sr ISPoFs
that time oil had risen IA cents and the painn, who had
sold i'm hls own name compromised with the purchasers
Of 100 bills at ESQ tho difference between the prices
oil continued 70 rise and reached co cents The palnn
lost too, his commissions the $500 bills. amount
ing to so. o. For these losses lie sued the
Company, and the Court below rendered
ant now appeals arguing that there contract be-
tween themselves and the plaintiff by which they could
contract il was contained In the printed FORM and
that under that they not liable, as the message was
not repeated and that, even snpr0sing mem aDe INC
damages too remote. not being the direct cOnse
Nence OF tho IN the message. The plaintiff replies
that contract arose between himself aud ue delendhts
when they undertook to deliver message 10 hun, and
that the money paid by n was the ION oi tha
tract "a he did not them until the contract was com
peo and that his action, which resulted IN loss OF money
end labor directly rom the negligence OF tue Dc
PENDANTS. Decision reserved
For plaintiff AFR. john L. Parsons; FOR defendant Mr.
LOWRY,
Louis. G Souuok appellant sg George south'k respondent
This was an action brought by married woman
against her husband the Of $3.50 ~ the
balance OF moneys received by him her agent. and
forming part " her separate estate 10y the WIN OF er
father the appellant with sisters equally entitled
To q share and its proceeds. subect To her
own separate disposition. without being In any manner
liable for the debts liabilities Of her husband, or subject
in any manner 10 his control or disposition The
respondent Of the executors Of the WILL and quail
fled such On Sept Il, IBCf, the appellant, by nstr'
nent in writing, under seal, made the respondent her
agent collect the moneys due her from her fathers
estate, and he received mp To june 1855, over sl5o
Ou the trial OF the cause, after the appellant hhd
rested case the referee allowed the respondent 70 De
IN his own behalf Notwithstanding the objection
was made 90 his competency witness He undertook
to swear from memoranda made by his bookkeeper, and
also vague recollocions which he bad OF pay
made Ga cash 10 the appellant that he had paid 10
her account all the money that was due bnt u
appeared that the larger pOiu0n OF the moneys WIN
which he sought tO credit her, was paid by him Tor s
for which ne would have been primarily liable ns her
husband The referee gave judgment against Mrs.
southwick from which the present appeal was taken
ON the argument tho Court reversed the Judgment,
vacated the order OF reference and ordered trial
holding that It incompetent Tor husband to testify
for or against his wife.
Ebrdgc T. Gerry for the appellant; George W Wright
for the respondent.