The New York herald., 1869-03-22
NEW YORK CITY.
THE COURTS.
SIXTH DISTINCT CIVIL COURT.
Before Judge Lane.


MARCH 20.-Rissseit Us. wilson et al Members or
two suits brought by the plaintiff In this case
against the defendants-one for rent and the other
for liquors and cigars furnished the members OF the
New York Firemens Association during the year
1851, while they were in occupancy of the premises
No. Al Sixth avenue, as association rooms Defen-
dants' counsel took the point OF o nonj0inder and
mlsjoinder OF the parties for whom they appeared.
Plaintiffs counsel moved 10 amend his complaint
BY striking out and adding 'parties defendants"
This motion was argued at some length, the defen-
dants' counsel contending that the District Courts
have no power vested In them either to strike out
or add amendments TO a summons or complaint
Decision reserved. For plaintif. ex-Judge Phillips
for defendants, William Kane and Charles Ruston.
PATENT CASE.
Wiiidnl A. BrOcE,cdy Us. Mum II Co.-Thfs was
proceeding brought by the plaintiff against Messrs.
Mum u Co., proprietors or the Scientific american,
to recover ninetyhve dollars which was claimed to
be due under contract between the parties. The
complaint showed that IN June 1868, the defend
ants were doing copartnership business as patent
agents and solicitors, and the 9th OF that month
one Henry Cowing entered into an agreement with
them, through their agent, James ii. Gridlcy, ct
Washington, ID. G., whereby the defendants under
took TO make and prepare drawings, Specifcati0ns,
@c:; OF an agricultural machine and present them
the Patent ONCE OF the United States patent
for the same. On the 26th OF June. 1858,
vi
services TO be rendered In pursuance OF their agree
ment eighty dollars, which was 10 be expended
for government fees or new application agency fees
the defendants 80 unskifuy performed their duties
that the Patent ONCE at Washington refused to grant
letters patent for the machine and returned the
drawings aud specifications to the defendants for
correction and completion, as they were not IN ac-
cordance with the laws and regulations OF the
Patent ONCE. IL Is further alleged that the defend
ants refused to make the required alterations ana
corrections and Cowing was obliged 10 employ
other agents 70 revise the work performed by the
defendants at an expense Of nlnety-nvo dollars. MI
CowiDg duly assigned his cause Of action to the
plaintiff IN this case for valuable consideration,
and It Was 60 recover this ninety.hvc dollars
the flrm q Brown, Han : vanderpoel.
ing persistenty annoyed the defendants agents by
requesting changes and alterations in the drawings
every day. SO much so thai 1t was impossible to get
them completed; that they would not allow their
draughtsman 10 make extra changes unless MFR. Cow
ing paid extra charges; that Cowing said he would
pay the extra charges but he then failed In furnish
Ing proper models 20 the draughtsman to work by;
that one sheet was enough to Illustrate any model,
and that their draughtsman had to make SIX sheets
OF drawings for Mr.. C0wings agricultural machine;
that the deendanLs agents did not agree to procure
for MIN any patent for his inventions: that the draw
ings were made IN accordance with the rules and
regulations OF the Patent ONCE, and the patent
was subsequently issued on them; that MIR. Cowing
appeared to have gone absolutely crazy about
his invention, and made the defendants
agents at Washington draw up the particulars
about II in a ridiculous and absurd manner which
male them write on the back OF IL that they were
not responsible ior Mr.. Cowlngs extravagant ideas
and nOtions; and that the defendants only owed him
dollars, which had been twice rendered to hIn.
Judgment Tor plaintiff, SO and costs.
MUSICAL CASE
Carl Ansclltttz rs. Joseph q. Bror1i71g e, dl-The
plaintiff IN this case is the well known musical
maestro and he brought his action under the follow
ing circumstances: During the week commencing
January g. and ending January a--1s69, Mr. An-
schultz, ut the request OF the defendants per-
formed certain services for them as musical
conductor at Cosmopolitan Han, in Third
avenue, for which they agreed to pay him
s75 but they mad viated their contract and refused
to pay him. The defence showed that the plaintiff
agreed with the defendants 10 conduct the orchestra
at Cosmopolitan Hail every night IN the week and
twice on sunday for four weeks from the Sd Of
January, at the rate Of $75 per week; but the plain
tiff only performed the services required OF him for
three DAYS. and then refused to carry his con-
tract because there was not sufficient number OF
musicians 10 constitute an orchestra. Defendants
couusei took the point that there was no fixed OF
technical meaning to the term orchestra, to mum
bers. Mr.. Absolute sw0re that there was, and tina
IL was understood by experts That an 0rcnestrs
should not consist OF less than twenty musicians
He also swore that after he had conducted tn,
orchestra for three evenings the defendants dis
charged them thereby vltaring their contract. De-
clsion reserved.