Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1876-06-18
FOR DEFENDANT
The IBaseItOn-O'CSrsser Case Decided
-PsRiRttfT 90 Appeal 80 the United
States Supreme COurt.

The Nsshvills American, of Thurs.
dsy, the fifteenth instant,. contains thi
following: "In the easo OF J. G, Hssel.
ton vs. ThomsS U'Conner, tie Jury, un
der lhe cshI=rge OF the court, returned
verdict in favor Of the defendant. Judge
iugg began his charge by remaikiDg
that tie case was really comprised
within narrow compsss. First, If II
had tesn urged on behalf CT the defend.
ant that the contract sued on bad
been entered into 90 vi5lation of public
policy, the in6ccsment thereto being
that tho plaintiff should withdraw the
authority he had given TO Senator
Hughes to offer on his behalf when the
question OF the Ratification OF the peni
leItiary lease should come up for action,
q bid higher than that Of O'COnper &
booney. Blu. the mere withdrawal o.
this authority, at that stage Of the mat.
ter, under the lnducement aforesaid, the
Judge said, failed to come mp TO the line
Of what was REQUIRED 70 vitiate an agree.
meEt on account Of q violation Of public
policy. So far ss this point was con
csrned, the law was with the plaintiff
The judge then explained that the theory
OF tue plaintiff was that O'Conner d
L3oney should receive him into partner
ship with them, upon the ratification OF
the lesse by the legislature. The In.
stTument sued on purported to be con-
tract between OiCOnner & LOoney o,
the one Tsrt, and HaRelton on the
other. OCOnner and Haselton signed
It, but LOOney then refused TO sign it,
ThereupOn, O'Connsr took up his pen
anu Sdded to his own signature the
words, afor O'Conner & Looney." He
had no authority to sign for LoOney, bui
he might bind himself by undertaking
that Looney should assent to bis act
Pfinla fdcte, his adding to his own zig
nature the woIds, "fOr O'CoDBer &
Looney," was an undertaking upon the
part Of OConner that O'Conner d
LoOney should take Bsselton into
partnership. But the jury might lock
10 the circumstances attending this act
upon the part OF O'Conner, in order to
determine whether the undertaking was
really what It appeared to be upon the
mere face Of it. They might consider
the remarks msde by O'Conner az the
time OF adding thess words to bis sigma
tuTe, as well as the other incidents OF
the transaction, and gather from the
whole proof whether the parties fully
understood and intended at the time
that the instrument thus signed shouiG
be the contract of O'Conner and Hazel
ton. If the jury found that the contract
was go regarded by the parties at the
time of its execution, then tho plaintiff
would be entitled to recover whatever
damsges he had shoSn himself TO have
from ron.fulflllmentofits it's stip
ulstions. The jury found as above stated.
The plaintiff will take writ Of error
to the supreme court of the United
States. His counsel express themselves
ss confident OF q reversal upon two
grounds: First, that the court erred in.
e. ti t e. E ' y tie sI, i1rv 10 esqp qnst 1iS M h.
nature and extent of the obligation as
sUmed by OCOnner in signing "fOI
OiCoDper & LOoney;n and, secord diy,
that the court erred in excluding the evil
depee of the efforts made by Cherry,
O'Conner & Co. in the management OF
the case as an element to be considered
by the jury in estimating the amount Of
the damages sustained by the plaintiff
in being excluded from the partnership
stipulated for with O'COnner & Loorey.
1t was not claimed that the profits Of
Cherry, O'Conner & Co. Were to be
taken as the measure Of what thoee Of
O'Conner, LoOney & Haselton would
have been, had that firm been put into
operation; but that they were an item
proper for the consideration OF the jury,
in arriving at the latter estimate, for the
purpose of sscertainipg the damages
sustsined By the plaintiff.
A motion for q new trial was made in
the case, and continued to the next term,
when Il will be overTuled, and the bill Oh
exceptions prepared and the case tab en-
up TO the supreme court.