Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-01-04
rHE COURTS.
-c,v,t. co,,,rn,,;-, w,,,,,

Crwcpf- CouRr-Jgstf-e wyli>
Z. o. Hines 4. J. J. and J; NJ: Hine, judge
ment by defauk against J. Y. Hines, he only
being served ixith process for full amounts
sc, ;25 81, amount of note. with interest from
July Sd. isss. 10 nuary ith, 100.
rHE GuANO CASE.
q The case OF Tarner VS.. Barfholow, was then
resumed. Mr. bradley having Mr.. Blrtholow
on the stand, wiz ned Ia ask him what he had
lost on this Ariel, in freight, carriage. cost of
several analysis, and money expended by him
in finding out the true character of the article
sold, alleged TO he guano in order TO st Ii Oft
against the plaintiffs claim. Objected TO by Mr..
Ing for the plaintiff, the ground that defend
ant could not allege his own turpitude he hav-
ing sold the article as No. l, when he bought IL
a. No. 2, and knew IL 10 BE-
MI Harriss, for the defendant, sgreed with
Mr.. Ing, that no cause of action could arise out
of fraud, and argued that the whole transac
ton on plaintiffs part was fraud from thu
beginning, and heaee they could not come IN
and alege turpituoe on the part OF the defend1nt-
Tue Court said. up 10 the time of the arrival
Of the Srticie bought its true character was the
only true grounds of set-of. He allowed the
evidence so far as they related 10 the expenses,
also in regard to the proper analysis of thu arti
Gle He had no righf 10 rely npen the plaintiff
statements after the time of It's coming TO his
hand: at was The duty Of the defendant 10 make
the examination for himself The question
10 what defendant lost, in the sale To third par
iies, We have nothing 10 do with: but what was
the article worth between plaintiff and offend
ant. and not what damages accrued 10 dafcnd-
ant by the sale 10 third parties: and the eNienc'
yesterday was only allowed because il was not
objected 10.
The testimony being closed. plaintiff offered
prayers TO III. Court and argued them, and
quoted numerous leading eases To sustain his
views that cGredt eslptar should obtain in thfs
case. Mr.. Harris argued that this rule did not
apply where Their WAS express warranty,
which * claimed i'm this case by the lettar from
plaintiff 10 defendant, and that the seller did
Dot deliver the articles which he agreed 20 sell
TO the purchaser. He also claimed fraud. and
consequently this rule could not obtain. The
buyer also must abide by all the latent defects.
equally unknown to both parties; bur in this
case he claimed there were latent defects known
10 plaintiff and unknown to defendant. for The
plaintlf sold as damaged that which pro-
nounced by experts To be good Peruvian gnano
Also, in Selden and Green, 9Th Howard, only
makes the buyer responsible when he has kept
the goods and dealt with them = his own after
discovering that they We're not represented.
ORPHANS COUgT-.JSttgs ParcsU.-First and
final account of John ID. Mcpherson. admins
traitor of Charles r. Robertson, deceased. and
second account of Joseph X. Keen. guardian
TO Arthur L. and John q. Keen, were sp-
proved and passed
Elizabeth Pyles, appointed guardian or
phans of Thomas T. Pyles, deceased; bond.
$1,000. Mary F. Essex. guardian of the
phan of Jas. +. Essex; bond, ~. 600
Court delivered his opinion, sustaining the
exception filed by Daniel Wormer in the case
of Robinson.