The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-10

/ the suit was shown in motion made yesterday
before Judge Lawrence In Supreme Court,
Chambers. on behalf OF defendant Tor an
furnish bill quo Of sSs
warrants alleged to have been either improp-
erly drawn, coqn asa or Endorsed, which
was quite an argument on the motion, the sta te-
ments on either side developing nothing specially
! 1t was contended by Messrs. J. G. Carter and
Simon Stern who appeared on behalf OF the CITY,
setting forth the grouna OF the action. 1t was
clearly and specifically alleged in the complaint
that within ceSain In, Intervals o. time certain
bank, That balance OF over So 0Oo, 200. belonging
to the city, remains stu on deposit in the
poslt; There certainly could be no more
simple or clearer Issue than this, and no bill OF
particulars vas necessary to give on this point
further Information 10 the bank.
Elk Judge Emott urged in reply that the com.
plant did not present the simple issue as to
whether there still remained in the bank bal.
ance OF money belonging to the city. He insisted
that there could he no dispute; that all the
moneys deposited by the city in the bank had
been paid out, and the city's sole right Of action
rested on the assumption that the amount claimed
In the present suit had been improperly paid out
on warrants which had been Improperly drawn,
These alleged rregu lar warrants did not date
from any particular time, but were OF different
to be rreguIsr To enable the deesdant to
properly prepare his defence and intelligently
meet the ISSUE it was insisted that bill Of par.
ticulars was essential, and that such bill OF par
tlculars should specifically set forth the warrants
alleged to have been Improperly drawn, those
aud those alleged to have been Improperly In.
dOrsed. At tie close OF the argument Judge Law.
renee took the papers, reserving his decision
A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION.
Jacob II. v. Cockrott brought an action against
the New York and Harlem Railroad Company to
recover the sum OF $3.50 for damages for an al.
legged breach OF for the sale real estate
In February, 1857, the defendants advertised Tor
sale at pubic auction certain number OF lots OF
land on Fourth avenue, between Thirty-secOnd
and Thirty third streets. and on the 7th day Of
that month the property was sold, at which sale
one lot. on the southwesterly corner OF Fourth
avenue and Tnirty-second street, knocked
down TO the plaintiff for $1,000. The terms of
sale were ten per cent to be paid on the day OF
sale and the auctoneers fees winch the plain TIL
alleged that he complied with, and the balance to
be paid on the delivery OF the Decd Marcn 8, 1867
me case came TO trial yesterday IN the Court OF
peIrcd IN evidence that at the time OF the sale SAID
lot OF land was encountered by two mortgages IN
trust to secure the payment OF certain bonds of
the defendants, SAID mortgages lncludin. prop
erty worth very many times more than the
amount OF the bonds they were intended to Sc.
cure. Owing to these membranes the plaintiff
re used TO accept deed OF the property unless
the liens were discharged OF record. This the de.
endants were unable to do, but offered TO secure
the painiir against any claim or demand, loss or
damage, by reason OF such mortgages By giving
him the individual security OF the defendants and
In addition thereto the personal indemnity and
guarantee of Cornelius Vanderbilt which the
plaintiff declined to accept 1t was also claimed
by the defendants that they were not aware at
the time that the mortgages in question covered
the lot purchased by the Dlainti1. The defendants
also claimed that the sale was made In good faith
ana without any intent to deceive or mlslead the
That the plaintiff never TT rendered or r't paid
to the defendants the whole or any part
OF the purchase money agreed to DC paid
for said lot OF land. The Court charged the jury
that the plaintiff was only entitled to the actual
damage which he had sustained-that Is to say
the ten per cent on the amount bid and the auc-
toneers lee OF $50. without interest, however, as
that sum had remained in the hands or the auc-
toneer ever since the day OF sale, anu no demand
had ever been made on the defendants for the re-
turn or the same. The Court also charged that
the plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable compen-
satlon for expenses in searching the title to the
property. The only evidence on this point was
that OF the plantlf's attorney, who testined that
he examined the title and thought $500 was fair
charge, although he made no abstract Of the title
or procured any searches to be made. The Jury
rendered verdict for the plaintiff for $780,
being the ten per cent paid by plaintfr and $3.50
Tor examining the title. =. N. Black appeared Tor
the palntir and ex-Judge Hilton and Henry II.
Rice for the defendants.