The New York herald., 1870-01-08
DeC18sO las
BY Judge Barbour.
COURT OF COMMON pleAs-StRsaAl TERM
Powers Of Jurics in Civil District Courts,

Powers Of JurKcs in Civil District Courts.
Before Judges DAILY, Ioew and Van Brunt
Carrsnoton ct al, Appellants, us. Rddican, Re-
sporsdeat.-An action was brought against the de-
fendant TO charge him as copartner Of The defend
ant Whlttemore Tor goods alleged to be sold to
them as copartners and delivered TO Whittemore.
The defendant lRadican) denied that he ever was u
copartner OF the other defendant and this formed
the issue III the action, which was tried before
Justice Quinn and jury. Toe testimony on the
issues was conflicting and after tho evidence Vas
given and both sides had rested the Court directed
the jury TO give verdict for the defendant kadi-
can, which was done, ana Judgment was accord
ingy rendered for the defendant AadcaD with costs.
The plalntlfs appealed aud urged the following
points on the arf-ument-
Pirst--rne Justice erred In not leaving the eYi-
dence To the jury 10 pass upon us su1iciency Dis
tict courts are Justices courts; and IN JUSTICES
law well as of fact (see Hill, 326; JonD, 1885,
Leg. 0bs., 424; Governs Treat 357) Hence, jas
tice u dlstrict court can, in case where there
is Jury trial. dis mss the compaint Or direct ver-
dict for either party.
secoild-A Judge OF a court Of record has no power
TO dismiss complaint or direct verdict after bOtn
sdes rest where there Is coDnlct OF evidence, rs
III this Case l5ee os Barb. Iso 80 do All; SO BarD
29f
rue respondent contended that there was no con-
illct OF material eyaence, and tat the evidence was
not sufficient 10 sustain the complaint and the JUS
ice vas right IN directing the jury 10 find verdict
Tor the defendant. Judgment reversed
The New judiciary Article-First Action
Taken with Regard TO its Operation.
GI,o, Us. Went aiad Others. This case, the final
adjudication OF which WIZ AFFECT several important
cases the appeal calender, came up yesterday on
motion. Originally The suit YVES brought by the
plaintiff TO recover o bin Of goods, ana was held
before Judge Brady and jury, and occupied con-
siderable time, resulting IN judgment for the
defendants. The defendants relied upon settle
| inenJ according to which Ellery anu Hauibaur, Of
the rm Of Went Co., retired frOm the cOpdrtner-
ship, and by which Went was 10 recover the assets
| OF the arm and incur all Its responsibilities
and Indebtedness. Plalnti.is, after this settlement,
| made deInaud for payment OF the goods sold and
| delivered TO the old firm. Defendants vet up this
agreement and that the paintlls knew OF IT, and OF
| the time received $4,000 on account Plaintlfs
averred That the alleged agreement imperative,
| and was obtained by fraud. On this allegation OF
fraud the was submitted TO jury aud verdict
given Tor the defendants. The planilr then appeal
| ed TO the General Term OF the court ana ia the
month Of June, 1851 the case was submitted to the
| fun court--Judges Daily, Brady and Card0Z0 put
before called on Judge Cardozo retired aud on the
| ia December, 1869, the judgment was affirmed
! by Judges Daily and Brady. Now o motion
on the part Of plaintiff Is made for
reaTgument OF the case the ground that the Board
OF state Canvassers, on the 9th OF last December and
/ previous to the judgment beng affirmed
announced that rhe judlciary article No. had been
| adopted by The people, and tnat, consequently, Il
| was incompetent Tor Judge Brady To sit IN review
/ upon Judgment delivered by him. The case IS Sci
DOWN Tor further hearing on Monday morning next
FOR the palnuH Mr. John u. Fogerty; Tor defendant
! Charles White.