The New York herald., 1869-04-20
Easa.EE ClUnT-pART !.
Storage of Goods Case.
Before judge Curtis.

Before Judge Curtis.
Charles s. Scaeack Us. James 1ttl6Ot-This was
an action brought storage OF 2S boxes Of
merchandise. There was also counter claim Tor
damages TO the goods so stored 1t was Claimed FOR
the defendant tnas there were 1913 boxes OF goods
stored with plaintiff and that he had only surren-
dered 3ls boxes. Defendant through counsel, also
set up a counter claim for damages growing out Of
alleged njury OF the goods In question by the ns9
gence Of the palntin or that OF MS employees agents
or servants. 1rIak was had on all the facts and
Issues raised and the Court charged the jury sub
stanially iollows:-First. that it was contended
for the paintf that there was special contract as
to the price 10 be paid for storage, while 1t was con-
tended for the defence that the contract was made
Ouuutt7l aeliut and was not special III its cnarac-
ter. II was for the jury TO say what was the real
character of the contract The paintiil, no matter
what was the nature OF the contract whether spe,
mart of 1t in its entirety. II the jury was
eatsfed that the plant lad converted any Of these
boxes OF goods to his own USE and did not surren-
der up the same when demand therefor was made
upon him and tender OF the amount OF storage due,
he cannot recover, because he did not perform his
contract IN It's entirety That the question as to the
number Of boxes OF goods that were left win plain
Tfor storage was altogether one OF iact ior tne Jury
claim, the burden OF proof was on the DEFEND
aut to establish alrnatively his right TO recover
under IT. that it was coHteIded on his behalf that
one box of tie goods was injured to the extent oi
Gfy per cent; that mice had eaten through tue box
aud had made their nests within IT, and tnat the fact
OF the goods being damaged at the time they were
delivered TO defendant from palntins Warehouse
of plantiff If they were satisfied aalrmstivey on
the proof that the goods, at the TINE they caie Into
the possession Of the plaintiff were In good order
and sound condition. That the plaintin was what
the law terms Doilee for hire and was bound TO use
ali ordinary care skill and prudence for the preser
yation OF the property entrusted 10 him. Whether
plaintiff hai done or not was question on all the
proof submitted In the case for the jury TO pass upon
Tbat part of the couniefcani Tor the conversion Of
the i've boxes ol goods and tnelr value was aban.
doned by the defendant ana consequently did not
maze any part OF the issde. The jury were unable
70 Ggrce, aud we're discharged
Action on an Administrators Bond.
Before Judge Gross.
Gisson yero and Ydl1e,c S. Mead cs. John Liz
fngsio,. FaHip Se0oid alsd Francis HQGman.-This
was an action brought 10 s4ll 81, which the
plaintiffs altered TO be Cue them from the estate OF
JOAN Whclan, deceased. 10 appeared that John Liv-
ingslon the principal defendant in the action, was
appointed administrator OF The estate OF deceased,
giving the usual bond After some investi-
cation into the matter II was ascertained
that this bond was worthless, and proceed
ings were therefore Instituted TO remove him
from all charge or contgc OF the estate. during the
progress OF these proceedings Livingston proposed
10 counsel FOR the widow, Mira Wh.,,ar tj .e 4 new
bond, good ala, suucient IN every respect. Toe
Tsoi,osltlon was accepted and new bond was given,
ihe two other 0efendahts Siebod and Hoffman.
Icing sureiies thereto. the plaintiffs, IN commencing
an action for tile recovery OF the debt OF t4g4 81 due
them by deceased IN ms lifetime, against the admin
isrator include In the suit the two suleties Siebod
rnd Holman, who were declared Dy tue representa-
tivcs OF IivingtOn.
Judge Gross in submitting the case to the
Jury, severely anima1yerted on the conduct OF
livingston IN tho aIfair ana tho wrong inflicted by
him on the unfortunate c0-deendAnts. lie SAID the
jury were aware. from the evidence, OF the manner
IN whica the bond In question was given, aud the
signatures OF Siobold and Hoffman obtained TO 1t.
The bond on tts face had every thing which the law
required 10 was duly hled With the surrogate OF
the county OF New York. The conditions of taat
hond were that the said Livingston should faithfully
cxecu,e the trust reposcd III him as administrator
Tie will annexed OF all ana singular the goods,
chattes, credits, &C., john Whelan, deccased and
oDey ali orders of the Surrogate touching the adj
,rfstratlon of the estate committed to him. From
the evidence submitted 1t would appear that Living
atom at his final accounting had IN his possession 9
large ann, OF mouey-sulicent TO pay the plalntifs'
claims which claims by the final decree OF the Surro-
gate. he was required to pay. The transcript OF that
decree was filed In the proper once and an eXecu-
lion was then duly issued to the sheriff. fhat exc
sution together with the return of the sherin en-.