The New York herald., 1869-06-23
BROOKLYN CITY.
TIE COURTS.
SUPREME CouAT--ClRculT.
Action TO Recover Price Of Goods Sold.
L.


Action TO Recover Price Of Goods Sold.
Before Judge Iappen.
Charles Dohertv Us. Herman Se|ke.-0n the Goth
OF June 1865 plaintiff alleges that he sold defendant
5000 worth OF BRICK which he had paid for. This
action was brought TO recover that sum, with in.
terest. The defence set up was general denial.
with the exception OF admission that the sum OF
testified on the trial that there had been some nego.
tiations relative 10 the purchase OF the brick Dut
that the sale fell through In consequence OF dls-
agreement in the price. The jury returned verdict
for the paintiff for S2l4, the full amount claimed.
jerks and Ward Tor plaintiff; Cherry and Dickinson
for defendant.
The Liabilities of Express Companies.
Alph0nse FREDERICK u.s. ElnaOre p. ROss.-The de-
fendant is the President Of the Union Express Com
pany. On the 1lth of September the company
tation to Manchester N. H., by way OF Boston, six
teen boxes containing $40 panes of stained glass,
which defendant represents received for ranspOr
which, as plaintiff alleged the company Ter an ade-
quate consideration agreed TO convey to its desti-
nation. The boxes were all marked "This side up,
with care" notwithstanding this precautiOn $50
panes Of the glass; valued at $780, were broken before
they reached Manchester In consequence Of the boxes
various ways been careiessy handled by defendants.
The defendants admitted that they undertook 10 for
ward to Boston the glass in question, where It was
TO be delivered TO other parties TO be forwarded TO
Manchester on condition that they should not be re-
sponslble for any damages that might happen TO the
by the defendants that after they had taken the
glass to Boston they delivered it 70 plaintin, who
afterwards put 1t in possession of parties who con-
veyed it to New Hampshire. The glass, as de-
PENDANTS claimed, was not injured while IN their
possession. The defendants put in evidence
on the trial receipt on which was written pro-
vsO to the effect that the plaintiff took the risk him.
self in shipping the goods. The Court charged the
jury that If there was contract made OF the kind
set forth by defendants the plantir could not re-
cover but that the paper introduced for the pur-
pose Of showing that the shipper OF the goods as
sumed the risk must be supported by verbal testl-
mOny. If the goods were shipped at the risk OF the
plaintif on the understanding that they were to be
carried the side up that the shipper intended as in
dicated by the mark on each box, then 1t was
charged Is was incumbent upon the defendants 10
show that the goods had at all times renamed that
side up while in their possession and control. The
jury returned verdict for plaintiff for 1919 80.
Suit Against the Union Ferry Company.
benedict Krdus as. The Union Ferry COhlpGnV.-
On the 10th Of October 1865 defendants plaintiff
alleges, received for transportation from New York
to Brooklyn by Hamilton ferrybOat horse and wa
gon belonging to plaintiff After the horse driven
upon the boat 1t was, through the carelessness OF the
defendants, thrown down, and so III uch injured as
to be thereafter absolutely worthless. This action
was brought to recover $500 damages. The defend
ants deny ali the allegations OF the complaint. Ver
dict not yet rendered