The New York herald., 1869-01-21
BROOKLYN CITY.
----->~~-~---~~--~~~s>--
THE COURTS.
SUPREME ClaCUl
Action ON q Prom5ssory Note.
Before Judge Gilbert.

Before Judge Gilbert.
william H. Gxttd o. John III. Fgngter ana
Otsers.--The defendant, Flager, and his brother
another OF the defendants, were iron merchants IN
New York, with branch house In Boston, and did
business under the nrm name OF Flagler Brothers,
Holden and simpson. the other two defendants
were boiler makers In Brooklyn, under the name Of
Oliver Holden 4 Co. These two firms had extensive
dealings with each other, and In the course
OF their transactions flagler Brothers be-
came indebted to Holden 4 Co. in the sum
OF se,bo0. For this Indebtedness Flager Brothers
gave on the 18th OF April, 1867, three notes. all hav
ing several and the one In question nine months to
run. The necessities or their business were such as
TO compel Holden Il Co. 10 realize something upon
Simpson, as he claims, with the firm name and
presented at a bank III New York and one IN Brook
tnay made Known y1 the state of afars TO Flaaer nj
the New York house. who promised TO see II he could
get the notes discounted. Failing In TINS Ia New
York he communicated with the Boston house, ana
man BY the name of Guild, the plaintiff In this case,
found who willing to take one OF the notes,
the face OF which was 81, loo 81 for three per cent
month or. simpson called on Flagler again, and
this offer was stated to the former with the sugges
tion that the other two notes might possibly be ds
posed or on the same terms. simpson, when called
10 the stand testified that he consented 10 surrender
the CID notes Tor new ones with but u lew days 10
run at u shave or three per cent month. When the
old notes were surrendered and the new ones taken
the former he considered cancelled though he ad
HtieN tiat tnrougN some lnauyerCeuCc on uis part
the endorsement was NOT scratched of the back.
Fagler on the other hand stated In his testimony
that he told simpson OF the opportunity he had to
dispose of one OF the notes. and that ne thought lie
could also dispose OF the other the same terms;
that he could accommodate him with the three notes
TO run but few days and pay them at ma
To this arrangement Simpson, as claimed, readily
assented, and the long notes were endorsed by him
at that time and not at the time OF their being pre-
aened for discount Mt any bank, and lett IN the
hands Of Flagier as his agent to dispose OF In the
way proposed. That Simpson surrendered the long
notes and took IN return short ones OF the same
amount IN the aggregate less three per cent month
on, there was no dispute. One OF the nine months
notes was actually sold 70 the plaintiff, who brought
this action against both makers and cndOrsers to re-
cover the iuli amount. The defence was that the
note was cancelled by its surrender and that, even
II IL were not, the action could not be sus-
tanned IN consequence OF the violation oi
the usury laws. Plaintiffs counsel held that
no such defence could be set up because
III Massachusetts,, where the money was paid for the
note. there Is no. usury law The Court ruled that
made and payable must govern the case. On the
point raised OF nvaldity because OF surrender the
note wi hout notce o the facts In the case the en-
uorsers were liable.
Verdict not rendered yet.
AcIiom tor Trespuss.
Thomas Hdys u.s. Michael NcGonigte and Others
Hays and McGonigle owned adjoining lots on North
Second street. Williamsburg. Wishing TO build anew
house on the front Of his lot McGongle moved
the old one to the The contract for building
the new house anu removing lnc ora one was Hauc
with one McQuade, one OF the defendants. who sub
let the job OF moving The house 10 a Mr. North, u
honse mover. In moving TINS house and "a building
the new one. 1t was claimed by the plaintiff aat ais
own house was nuch injured his shade trees cut
down, his garden destroyed, &c., and that he and
his family suffered much Inconvenience and some
times insults BY the builders McGonige's defense
chat he had nothing to do with the building and
removing OF the house whatever but the Court ruled
that he was responsible for the trespass whether
done by himself or - others under u contract with
him. The other defendant denied all the allegations
OF the complaint. VERDICT, $24l for plaintin.
suIt Of q Plumber for Work Done.
John Bro,ca as. clement Redd.-The plaintiff
a plumber, made q contract with builder by the
name OF Hooper to do the plumbing work in i've
houses In Quincy street. Hooper to give plaintiff an
order for the pay on the owner OF the building
man by the name Of Hgaet. Plaintiff went to Hig-
net, and by him was referred to the defendant.
Plalntiif swore, and another witness corr0borated
his testimony that going to defendant the latter
said to hm:-"Go and do the work, and when 1t Is
finished will pay you." The defence was that Read
was only the agent OF Hignet 10 pay out money de-
posted with him by the owner OF the house for the
purpose OF paying plaintlf1s plumbing bill.
Verdict for the plaintiff for $l647 3s, the whole
amount Claimed.