Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-10-28

SUPREME COURT Decisions. - Rescripts
have been received comprising decisions in the
following cases argued at the recent term of the
court held in this city:
George Thrall vs.. Joseph 5. Hill. An action
of tort for conversion of property, consisting of
billiard tables and other furnitures, etc, in the
billiard and bar rooms of the Bay State house,
which Thral claimed title to by bill Of sale,
in October, 1868, from Hatch & Wilcox, the
predecessors of the plaintiff as lesSes of the Bay
State house. The defendant claimed that under
the agreement mentioned in the rescript,
Hatch & Wilcox had no title in October, 1868,
which they could convey to Thrall. The eXcep-
tons to the rulings under which verdict was
rendered for tie defendant were sustained, on
the ground that the evidence tended to show
an agreement between Hatch & Wilcox and the
defendant, that in consideration of the lease,
and the enjoyment of the premises by the de-
PENDANT, the property in suit should become the
property of Hatch & Wilcox at the end of the
term that under such agreement Hatch & Will
cox had a vested interest in tine property, not a
mere possibility, but possibility coupled with
interest The bill of sale secured this interest
to the plaintiff, and on October 1, 1870, when
the lease expired, he acquired a completed title
to it. Aldrich and Goulding for the plaintiffs,
Very and Gaskill for defendant
Henry f. Ross VS.. Harrison Bliss. An action
to recover for alleged violation of an agreement
to convey lot of land, the defence being that
the owner was not bound by the action of the
auctioueer as his agent. The exceptions TO the
,ipb Var1ipt w rnn1nrpd
the plaintiff, were sustained on the following
grounds: The defendant could not be held as
party to the contract set forth in the memo
randum signed by the aHctioneer, unless the
auctOneer made the sale and signed the memo
randum in behalf Of the defendant as principal.
Authority to act for Bliss, express or implied,
would not make Bliss a party to the contract
unless the contract was in fact made in eXecu-
ton of that authority. The ruling that "upon
the pleadings the only question at issue was
whether the auctiOneer was authorized by the
| defendant to make this sale and execute the
memorandum" was erroneous. Staples &
Gouding for plaintiff, Hoar and Nelson for de
fendant.
Emily Jacobs vs.. Ira I. Jacobs, appellant. An
appeal from decree of the probate court in
reference to an estate in Southbridge. The
judgment of the superior court dismissing the
appeal was reversed, and the case is to stand for
the appellee to file her declaration.
Peter Dolan VS.. VIM. II. Green. An action to
| recover for intoxicating liquors. Exceptions
| overrued, on the ground that it would have
been erroneous 10 rule as matter of law on the
facts stated that the plaintiff could not recover.
There was evidence from which the jury might
properly find delivery in Rhode Island.
Commonwealth VS.. Patrick Foran, for viola
ton of the liquor law. The exceptions TO the
rulings under which verdict was rendered for
the government, were sustained. The question
whether, if the witness Cutter, intending hon
estly to aid the government in breaking up
traffic forbidden by law, visited the place where
the law was supposed to be violated for the pur-
pose OF obtaining evidence, it would detact
from the weight of his testimony, was exclusive
| ly for the jury. 1t was erroneous for the pre-
siding judge to state to the jury his opinion
upon this question. Very for the defendant.