The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-04-24

did not perform u In workmannke ana sk an
manner, and as matter OF detail they allege nrst
tSs st s PS Mss creased ws Now no matter what
individual faith may be In expert ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
applies to medicine OF dne ars we are -
one witness on behalf OF the plaintiffs goes upon the
stand and accounts for the tearing Of the paper
from the peculiar way in which the rolls OF paper.
heavy In weight, were placed upon the moor ana
allowed to remain there, and he states most posi-.
lively land you must not forget That he Ii the
man WHO had charge Of this linen finishinQ-a
man who ~ presumed TO know ABOUT t nr
o. which he sat na1a proaueea
the injury the corners Of the paper Is there any
testimony to contradict thatY None at all. Does
all; because far his testimony ID concerned, ne
does not know the condition Oi the paper when
n rom presumption and suppostion. Further than
that he not expert al least TO the extent that
the witness for the plaintiffs mas proved himsea 70
be- because he had charge OF this particular work,
KIND OF work as to which Dorman himself does not
presume to be familiar. Now, Is the other
witnesses for defence competent to testify as
regards thata Certainly not for the same
reasons. Now, what 5 the other polntf
And after AL Is matter OF common ssns ss
the paper. Refer again to the testimony OF that
same expert witness. He tells you that was fault
Itself aud growing out OF the working OF the ma
chnery. The defence say at once thar they are not
responsible TOR the working OF That machinery. Ing
answer to that IS that DoIman himself inspected
this machinery, knew the manner and way III wnicn
II was run, knew Its OPERATION, knew the eHect oi
It's operation and IL Is from his observation VI THIS
thing that he presumed to speak at all III regard 10
IT, Now, then the only question that remains lor
discussion is the question oil sample. IL is the theory
OF the defence that this agreement was tnat
this linen finishing touch TO he put upon the goous
was TO be equal TO the sample shown " Mr. Dornlan.
Conceding mat that was tee contract, tnat TINS WORK
Wa.t0 be finished equal 10 mat sample, Is IL preucu
Of 1t to be LAID at the door OF the rsiltiis tnas
which ID caused by an inherent fault IN the quaity
OF the paper itself! Now you come 10 the surround
Ing circumstances, you come TO the TACT, ana that
man Of defendants, that during period or some
time The defendants uterposed serious protest or
rance, continued The use OF this paper, and
cont nued the employment Of the plaintiffs. De-
lleye that alr Dofmao Is perfectly iar Witness,
and was struck vita lis manner as that or
gentleman and man OF truth, but he might nave
had the conversation with the young man, Irer
ana have i0rgotton it, wherein he proposed 10 settle
and pay this claim. Now whatever Is hidden Ia
this matter, Of course. don't know nor do care
1t is scrptura declaration that "the laborer IL
worthy OF his hire;' and unless there exists good
why he should be deprived OF II, THINK IL is
the duty OF the Court TO see that he gets IT.. Win
regard 10 the motion 10 DISMISS On the grounds
stated, am Still more confident than was yester-
day that this is not case IN It's bearings tnat comes
within the PROVISIONS or tile two cases cited by the
learned counsel for the defence. am sa shed that
1t does strictly embody the same subject matter In
VOWED In the controversy In the supreme Court. The
saturs OF the action distinct, and therefore deny
Tue mutiou 70 u.SiIiss gcound. give judy
ment for paintns IN the sum OF S1,2 o. costs and
allowance; stay OF twenty days to make case.