New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-11-15
the extension Of the work. The Committee then nd
iourped until oA q m. todnv.
A s1m STRANGELY ENDED.
A urRy DISCHARGED IN BRo0KLYN AFTER RENpEI
A YERDicT-

A urRY DISCHARGED IN BROOKLYN AFTER RENDER
mo AN INoPERATIvB VERDICT.
The action of Richard agt. Wellington ct al.
for The conversion OF wines!worth $4,000 begun In
,s-o in the court Of Common Pleas in this city to
cover of the firm Of wellington Cox who were then
larea dealers in wines and liquors IN Broadst In this
,v $4,000 for the conversion of quantity of sherry
,ynos and was tried In November 1874 before Justice
Lowe and jury. The jury, after being out
| a. hours, failed to agree, stending II for the
plaintif and one for the defendant. 1t rumored
AZ the ime that OF the Jury had been tempered with
and considerable discussion in regard to the mat
ter at that time The defendants then caused the
TO changed TO Kings County and the brought
on for trial Judge Barnard aud jury Tuesday
last Col A. G. Davis and c. L. Lyon appeared coun-
sci for the plaintiff and Messrs Barney Butler Par
sons of this city for the defendants Three days
consumed By the evidence OF the firm OF Wellington
Co o. one side and Of Mr. Richard the
other, Wellington Cox did not deny that they had
received and sold the wine OF Richard that they had
settled with their creditors except Mr.. Richard, at
very small per cent OF their indebtedness but they
knowledge and consent Richort. on the other hand,
claimed that he stored the wines with them, and that
they sold the and appropriated the proceeds without
his authority and without knowledge on his part
that the wines were being sold. 49,.
The Judge In his charge ntmated that witnesses on
the other had committed wlfu perjury. and
instructed the jury that 1t for them to determine
ont few minutes they returned for Instructions irom
the Court, and told that the question simple
for them TO determine; that If they believed MT
Richards statement they would IND for the plantn
II they believed the statements OF the Weipgons, they
would fud for the defendants
The Jury then rtired aud came into Court yesterday
with the following verdict: ave- the jury, find YER
dict for the plaintiff"
Col Davis-I ask your Honor instruct the jury to
retire and the amount OF the verdict which they
ind IN my clients favor
Mr. PsrsOns-Your Honor. object. The jury have
been separated after agreeing upon their VERDICT ana
llIlif
Col. Davis-Yodr Honor this has now been trie
twice. The hrst time IL occupied 10 days, and the jury
stood IL to favor OF my client 1t has here occupied
three days and the jury are unanimously In favor OF my
render the verdict In such manner as to make 1t e'
fectIve.
The Court-I do not think So think that the jury,
having separated after agreeing upon their verdict
have right to change IL now IN any respect.
Col. Davls-We submit that the jury having found In
and IL having been evidently their intent 10
award the plaintiff the full amount OF the damages
claimed in tue complaint that they be allowed 10 retire
% out OF "A Jurors having determined that the
wines question converted by the defendants
and having been kept out OF his money for six
years past IL Is only just that this verdict should be
made effective.
Tue CourtThe jury have rendered their verdict and
discharged
Mr. PaTsoDsI to Get aside the verdict as irregu
lar.
The Court-The motion is granted and the verdict sci
asde the will retain les position GU the calendar
The Unprecedented determination OF this case created
considerable excitement among the members OF the bar
and the topic OF general discussion among those II
The Brooklyn Weekly Chronele, which bitterly hos
tile TO the Brooklyn Ring, and II was rumored That the
notOriety OF the plaintiff IN that city was the cause
removal Of the from the Court OF Common Pleas