New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-01-20
THE COURTS.
SUPREME CoURT-GEyERAL TERM.

Before Inqrahdm. p. d.. Barnard and Brady,
JJ-Leona,d B. Lhdslev and Isadc b. CGtren qgt me
European Isif0em og"PagmO.ee - &c i la h th oU
10 him Of certain oil lands for $4,000 ana altefward
formed defendants Company, stating the contract
price for that and another small piece OF land az $1,000
And the Company purchased the land from plaintiffs at
price, the plaintiffs aranging with Lahens that ho
should have $4,000 Of this excessive price
Part Of the consideration was paid in notes and this
suit to recover SS 81 due on these notes Inc de-
tense fraud the part OF the plaintiffs IN the trans
action. The notes were admitted
The Referee found there such fraud, but awarded
the plaintiffs S2 &C Oh the notes as not affected by the
fraud.
that the Referees own finding he should have decided
for the defendants.
The Referee awarded the opening and closing Of the
trial to the plaintiff The defendants claimed that,
louged them The Appellate Court decided they were
entitled 10 it, and reversed the Judgment Mr. Carter
for plaintiffs respondents; Mr. Coudert for defendants
HeaSay Eridence-M Michael Spat; agt. James lyons
IN Last New-Iork with an attempted rape and on her
testimony he convicted She died year later OF IN
lures received the time Of the alleged attempt and her
husband brought civil suit against Lyons for ms loss ON
the trial the plaintiff testified that when his vile came
home the Attn Of October the day Of the assault she
very nearly fell on the floor after he had got her on the
had, after offering her money which she had refused,
times endeayorng 10 commit rac on her; She escaping
time by his being obliged to keep his dogs from her.
lie testified to her subsequent deutncalOu OF Lyons as
the man This was the only testimony as 10 the ofense
and identifying Lyons the who committed IT. and
this testimony admitted win great hesitation by
Mr. Justice Balconl The defendant himself was
cndtd from testify ng having been convicted of an
famous on TINS testimony che jury gave yer
dict for $4,000 subsequently judge BacOm himself set
aside the verdict and ordered new trial on the ground
that he mistaken in adm ting this testimony. From
this order plaintiff appealed. claiming that for technical
the Judge had power to set aside the verdict
grant trial, aud argued that the evidence was
properly admitted che testimony OF the woman being,
by the nature OF the case the only possible testimony,
and her declarations made immediately after the affair
served its decision. William L. Headley for plalDtf;
Crook Bergen for defendant.
D. COtdet UuTdy agt ReCeirer Harmony Fire and Ma
rilIe Insurance CompdHy-Ihe plaintiff Insured the
schooner Alice Dell in the Harmony Fire and Marine In
Company ON the th june 1862 for $500 vau'
INK her at $1,000 The policy contained the usual war
rany against loss from capture, &C. and special war
rany from loss on account Of capture seizure detention
or destruction by or arising from any Oegerent or Dy
from any officer, civil or military or other persons
claiming to act ~ their name or under their authority
On the 18Th May previous the vessel had been taken
Of by the United states to transport stores aud
troops TO Brazos Santiago the master remaining on
sent over the bar. pilot was put Oh board, and
told the master 20 the north channel The master
said there none but the United States Officers or
dered him obey, and the pilot him the bar.
Getting the bar the United States officer in charge
another order winch got him into the breakers and
compelled him to strand the vessel.
The United states Government paid the owners $1,000
for their loss, and the claiming that tho vessel
worth moro than that this proceeding was brought
Ths Referee found that the vessel worth 0OO and
allowed the claim OF the plaintiffs. The defendants
peal They argue that the taking by the Government
in this seizure within the express terms OF the
warranty in the policy and therefore, the plaintiffs
That there Abandonment
tOta loss II there were, the Insurance Company woud
have the right 10 come III and demand a share OF the
$1,000 recOYeled from Government on paying the policy
That the finding OF the Referee to her value
against evidence and the value named the policy
beiug 5000 conclusive on he plaintiffs
For the plaintiffs 10 cCnt'uded that the taking by
the Government was at mot an involuntary charlering
and d seizure; tat The master was bound To take
pilot entering the ha~bor mat the payment by the
Goserumeut was npeuaa ION undor the charter and
not . luI compensation fer tho loss; That the $1,000
named 10 thr"lOlc" was merely a nominal OF formal
amount auo tieJ could meet II " positive PROOF OF
ltt tie' los. Tho Court reserved its decision. John
Sherwood Dr I4iuu u; John g. Burrll for defendants