The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-07-22

and Corporation Counsel at the time OF tho dis
city Tor any losses thar + might sustain through
him. Mr. Sprague was duly tried IN the County
Court before Judge Moore. and was defended oy
Senator Herman and ID. p. Barnard. The jury
found verdict OF mot guilty" This veTdicr. 1t
is claimed. gives him the right TO recover the
properly placed in the hands OF the city while the
investigation was pending. Hence tho present
suit.
On the closing OF the plaintiffs case the Corpora
tion Counsel moved for q nonsut. After listening
TO inc argument OF counsel on both sides Judge
barnard said that ne felt positive IN mis- own
mind thar both the plaintiff and his deputy, Rod
he had no doubt that holman used the money
with Sprague's knowledge. He was OF the opinion
aud he. therefore, granted the motion Tor the nom
suit. Ae granted The plaintiff o ninety days stay,
In order to appeal the case.
COURT OF sEssroNs-A YOUNG woKAN WITH
TWO zUsBANDs-A PECULIAR CASE.
Before Judge Moore.
Among those who were arragned before the
Court OF Sessions yesterday for sentence was
Ellen Quinn, who, upon tho advice OF her counsel,
pleaded guilty to an indictment for bgamy. When
only fourteen years Of age-sne is now nineteen
Ellen was married to one Thomas QUINN who
abandoned her after a days sojourn at q hotel.
On subsequent inquiry for her truant HUSBAND
she found that he had wife and two children
consider tnat she was lawfully bound to regard
him as ner husband. Two months ago she was
married to henry A; Nsgle clerk IL the office Of
on charge OF bigamy, and the bridegroom,
Nagle, was also arrested, as IL was charged that
he married her when ne knew that her first hus-
Danu Was still alive. 1t was proved, however that
he dlo not know Quinn, ana he was discharged.
Judge Moore sentenced Ellen TO the Peniren tiary
for one year. As IL Is said that she committed
the crime through ignorance, and that Quinn was
married TO another woman, as she had supposed,
application Will be made to the Governor for a
pardon In her case.
BURGLAR SENTENCED.
John Harmon, convicte+ Of burglary in the third
degree, was sentenced to the Penttentiary for Ave
years. by Judge Moore.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
POLICY OF MARINE INSURANCE TO BE INTER-
PRETED IN THE LIGHT OF PREVIOUS COMMUNE
CATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES IN REFERENCE
THERETO AND THE CUSTOMS OF TRADE.
WASHINGTON, July 81, 1875.
No. 81 october Term, 1S74.-The Equitable Safety
Insurance Company, appellant, vs.. Geo. Hearne-
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the District
OF Massac huseNs. MIR. Justice Swayne delivered
the opinion OF the Court. The controversy grew
out OF contract OF insurance upon tue same char
ter party as the case Of Hearne against the New
England Mutual Marine Insurance Company, Just
decided. On the I'd day Of May, 1885, Hearne
applied by letter of that date to the appellant to
ENSURE $4,000 on the charter party OF the bark
Maria Henry. valued az $4,000, If you will not
age from Liverpool to Cuba, and to Europe via
Falmouth Tor orders where to discharge.
she Will take ner registered tonnage OF coal"
On the Attn oil that month the company replica -
ave cannot write the charter OF the bark Maria
Henry at your rate-vlZ., three per cent including
coal from Liverpool 10 Cuba. Our rate Will be
Iour per cent Tor the voyage to include coaln ON
the TIA OF that month Hearne answered, arguing
against the rate proposed, and offered "three per
cent, or Jour per cent one aad a nalf per cent to
be returned II no loss" On the day following
the company responded, ave Will write
Henry as proposed by you. Europe
per cent net. IL Is worth something, you know,
10 tue risk at the port OF loadlng in Cupa.n
ON the next DAY Hearne wrots:-"I accept your
proposition in reference to the insurance Of tho
bark Maria Henry. Please insure 1900 at three
and half per cent,on the charter valued at $4,000
u market port, for orders where TO discharge
The contract as expressed In the policy, Is for
IRON Liverpool to port OF discharge in Cuba and
at and thence TO port OF discharge In Europe.n
down the close OF the litigation at law between
the parties inclusive as those in Hearne VS.. The
New England Mutual Marine Insurance Company,
as set forth In the opinion OF the Court In tnat
case. That opinion Is referred to for the par lcu-
lars. Hesrne, having been defeated In his action
al law, ned this bill for the reformation OF the
contract, as stated IN the policy. The Circuit
Court decreed In his favor. The company mas
brought the case here for review. IL Is not denied
that the correspondence constituted preliminary
agreement Such clearly was It's effect. The policy
was intended TO put the contract in a more iuIl
and formal shape. The assured was bound TO
read the letters or the company In reply to his
own with care. 1t Is to be presumed ne did so.
made, and 10 rest conndenty IN snss
ned the policy with the same vigilance
as tho letters OF the company. Tney tended TO
throw him OF his gusro. The principles OH watch
the Court OF Equity Will exercise the Jurisdiction
case before referred to- What was there SAID need
not be repeated. In this case Hearne's prvposi-
ton so the company was 70 insure upon the
as IelOre stated was-we viii insure as pro-
hall per cent. Its worth something you know,
to cover lhe risk at port OF loading in Cupa.b
This is The language OF the parties, and il
Is the essence OF the correspondence. Suppose
the language OF these sentences had been IN
corporaied IN the policy In This form Tins
OF the bark Maria Henry as proposed by the as
sured, from Europe 10 cuba and back TO Europe,
at :nree and one-hal per cent net'i-the pre-
MUM is enhanced Ito cover tho risk at port OF
loading IN Cuba"-what would have bee the Ie-
would be held tc cover alike the voyage to
port OF discharge IN Cuba, voy-
age thence, II necessary, 10 n port OF
loading in Cuoa. and a voyage from the latter to
Europe. The port OF loading' Is the only one
mentioned ia me letter; IL seems to have been
referred TO az a distinct and separate one. The
implication Is That the port might be any other
than the port oil unloading The right 10 20 10 boJh
rests upon the same foundation, ana IL is not more
clear as TO one than the other WAaL Is implied Is as
elrectual as what Is exp pressed. The nteBL vi the
parties, as manifested, Is the contract. Upon any
other construction the important language as TO
the point oil loading w0u1 he insensiDle ana
without effect. No other Interpretation, we think.
can reasonably be given 10 II. In tins controversy
the clear terms OF the preliminary agreement
warranted the Court below in overruling tho de-
parture from It found In the policy.
We have examined the case only IN the light OF
It's own inherent facts. We have found II neces-
sary TO consider the usage alleged to exist at
Liverpool touching voyages IN the trade from
thai port to Cuba. IL seems clear 70 US that the
Judgment below does not need further support.
We. therefore, iorbear 10 remark upon the SUI