The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-03-13
MARINE CouiT-2AnT 2.
scat" Lands IN Missouri Against the
Value OF Work and Labor in New
York-Im portant Charge.

YOrk-Important Charge.
Before Judge shea.
James Hawthorne vs. Samuel G. Acton.-This
was an action brought to recover 5000 for work
aud labor and materials used in the repairing OF
house OF defendants in Degraw street, Brooklyn.
The interest in the case turned upon the line OF
defence offered by the defendant, that, while ad-
mitting the work to have been duly performed an
agreement had been entered into between the
parties that the work should be paid for not in
cash, but by plaintiff consenting 10 accept some
land In compensation therefor somewhere
in the State OF Missouri. The plaintiff
having proved his case, his engagement by the
defendant to do the repairs in question, his
proof OF the value OF the materials used thereon
and his legal right TO recover, the defendant was
put upon the stand. He testified to the converse
ton between himself and the plaintiff which led
TO the work being undertaken by the latter that
he was averse TO having the repairs done. but
eventually closing the negotiation by the plain
ttr consenting, instead OIL cash. TO accept as his
compensation some land in the State OF Missouri.
Tue plaintiff positively contradicteo the allegation
or having consented to accept the land as q Quid
pro quo for ms work and LABOR or that any sucn
proposition was made TO him, and that the first he
heard oil the land business was wnen he presented
his bill for payment he defendant presented IN
evidence (the document not being received, how
ever deed OF (biank) land In Missouri. which he
onered tue plaintiff rs compensation. This pre-
uteu ne only Ndue pTOHeT OF 10 the
plalnti1 after the suit TO recover was Instituted.
Judge shea, IN submitting the case TO the jury,
SAID ;-lne principal question for them to consider
was, ulu Tue paintlH enter into an agreement
with the defendant TO take land instead OF money
Tor the work done by him to defendants house.
The latter says he did, the former SAYS not; that
no suCn proposition was ever made Dy him till
alter he presented his bill, and that then for the
first time the land matter was suggested to him.
Ine question was, which OF THESE parties Is mis-
takenY-to use the lightest term applicable to two
parties who swear 80 positively IN contradiction
one or the other. ii parties Will come into the
courts and tell untruths recklessy, it does not lie
In The province OF the courts, especially OF juries
who are tue representatives OF the people, TO
be tender oil the reputation OF men who are not
tender OF 1t themselves, and 1t Is the duty Of
courts and jurles TO publicly expose those who
reckless OF their Oaths. putting aside the question
as TO whether there was written contract or not,
which, in cases OF TINS Kind, the statute Of
whether there was ali agreement, not mere
talk, not mere negotiation, but was
there a definite understanding between these
parues tnat the plalntin should take land In
IN brooklyn. i could say good deal 10 you upon
Ihls matter, but WAL leave the whole question TO
yOur OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES w0rkingmaD in
NeW iork or brookiyn, working for ms daily Bread
wiz part with $500 value OF labor, performed or
paiu LOT by MIN, and 500 worth material, will
ne pc nkely 10 agree TO take land In Missouri in
return lof Work and outlay. ask you. gentlemen,
10 nnu specially ON this point. II you ind that the
Paihtln dia enter into such an agreement you viii
say yes II you md ne did NOT agree and he
heard nothing Of such proposition until after he
commenced THIS sult want you to find speciaIv
on that Inc jury, after a very brief deliberafion
found that the plaln q had made no agreement 70
take land IN compensation for his WORK and that
he had not heard OF the proposition until he mad
presented his bill. Verdict Tor the plaintif in the
iull sum, with interest and costs,