The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-08-09

ing to her own use bed and table linen platedwars
valued at $50 the property of Mrs. Frances Crosby
OF No 374 West Thirty street, IRON whom sne
had hired furnished house. II may be remembered
that on Monday last the prisoner was tired ON the
charge OF stealing and pawning four pairs oil
furniture OF the house az No. l0s Clinton place. On
the last mentioned charge, jury being unaccaeu az
10 whether the blankets had not been TRANSPORTED W
Mrs. smith, rendered q verdict OF not guilty sne was
then held the other charge, but on oeihg
arraigned yesterday by Assistant District Attorney
Herring the complainant failed TO respond. anu ater
some consultation the Court decided 10 discharge the
prisoner who bowed her Acknowledgements.
STEALING PROM AN EMPLOYER.
Peter J. Klein and Charles Beichert arraiRned
at this bar by Assistant District Attorney Herring
charged under tho following crcumstanccs:-For
some time past goods have been missing from tho
store OF William Jackson Co., No. III Broadway.
Sergeant X aIy OF Police Headquarters, commu.
picaied with and that officer succeeded ia tracing
them to Kicin who employed u salesman IN tho
store Ii was alleged in the indictment that Klein
stole pieces OF silk and sold them to Charles Bel
ebert, who kept an establishments at No. POI Seventh
avenue Gu being arragncd yesterday plea OF guilty
OF petit larceny was accepted, and the prisoners wero
sent TO the Pcnitentary each Tor the term OF SIX
months.
QUESTION OF IDENTITY.
Daniel Davidson was arragned by Assistant District
Attorney Herring charged with being connected with
burglary committed ct tho lager beer saloon No. Ito
named Otte swore that he caught the prisoner IN tho
hallway OF No. l21 Essex street. which connected
with No 119 by fire escape in the rear OF the prem
ses and that he held him Tor ten minutes until man
representing himself to be detective came up aud
pretended TO take him into custody from the dc-
scripton given the prisoner was subsequently ar
rested. Mr. Peter Mitchell, on behalf o the prisoner,
submitted that it case Of mistaken identity The
jury, being unable to agree were discharged and the
prisoner was rcmanded.
YOUTHFUL BURGLAR.
youth OF eighteen, residing at No. 164 Fourth
street, was arragned tho charge OF having on the
10Th OF July last broken the lager beer saloon Of
Charles Stark No l34 Seventh street. with intent TO
STEAL The prisoner pleaded guilty aud sent to the
State Prison for one year.
COURT CALENDARS-THIS DAY.
SUPREME CoURr-CnAMBERs-He Held by Judge Van
BruntNos. T. III, So Is, 81, S61s los, 1.3 l26 l4o,
~, AZ 14s le4 1875 1873 22o. 2el ~ ass 2Sl 292
297, BOZ. Assessment CalendarNos SO, 90, lOS lO9,
no. ILL., H. lis. ia, lis, 1l6, H. u.s. 49, 1913 l60
l5o ~ 49, l76, 1885, 1885, 1871, 1885, lSs $780, l9i lS2
CoyKr or GENERAL sEssIoxs-Part Held by Judge
Sutherland-rhe People VS.. John Lario felonous as.
sault and battery; same VS.. William j. kenny, grand
Scott, grand larceny Same vs. John Wiegand ard
Albert Burke, grand larceny; Same vs. VICTOR scho
larceny; Same vs. Charles Watson ana Frank Kelly,
grand larceny; Same W.. Charles + Clark and Charles
oape vs. Herman
Morris and William Hecker, forgery; Same vs.. Domin-
Ter Armanab, felonious assault ana battery; Same vs.
William Lyons and Thomas Bracken, grand larceny;
Same vs.. Ellen Smith. larceny from the person; Same
VS.. Margaret Downing larceny from the person; Same
vs. James Murphy petit larceny; Same VS.. Samuel
derby house; Same Vs. James McCabc, incest
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
GOVERNMENT coNTRAcTs-LIABILITY OF THE
GOVERNMENT FOR suspENDINo woRK-DIs-
CHANGES.
WASHINGTON, August 8, 1877.
The following decision has been handed down in the
Supreme Court OF the United States:-
No. 79S. The United States, appellants, VS.. joseph
Smth-Appeal from the Court OF Caims.-Tne only
questions in this relate to tue liability
Of the United States for damages growing out OF the
suspension the work under contract sued upon
In effect the bound Smith to furnish the ma
,crials aud erect The buildings, the labor being per-
formed by the soldiers At the fort excep to The extent
that skilled workmen necessary. There was
time specified within which tho Work must be DONE
neither was there any power reserved by the United
States to direct its suspension Under such circun.
the law implies that The work should be- done
within reasonable time ind that the United States
would not unnecessarily interfere to pre-
vent this. In Clarks case u Wall, 546 1t
was decided that the United States were
liable for damages resulting from an improper
Interference with the work OF contractor, and IN
Smoors 10 Wall, Az that the principles which
govern INQUIRIES as 10 the conduct OF individuals in
respect 10 tncr contracts equally applicable
the United States are party. me same rules were
applied III the case OF the Amoskeag Company az
Wall, 592l Here the work was stopped by order OF
tho United States Smith asked 10 b, released from
has unless he couIa on. This was refused
until the expiration OF sixty days. when he was
allowed TO resume. AS between individuals certainly
TINS would DC considered improper interference,
aud damages would be awarded TO the extent Of the
loss winch was The necessary consequence Of the sus
pension. The United States must answer according
rule. In this respect we cannot consider
this different in principle from that OF clark
u Wall, 546) The Court OF Claims has found Inc
amount of damages 10 nave been $5OOO-that IS TO
say, that OPINION from tho evidence before
IT, necessary to place smith IA the same condition
he would have been IN II he had been allowed
10 proceed without interference, and not allow
lug for loss or injury 10 his materials
which lie might have prevented by tho exercise
Of reasonable care and prudence This rule Of dam
ages, abstract propositon is clearly right Un-
less therefore, there appears III the record some error
growing out of the estimation of tho amount, tho
judgment below should be affirmed BY our rules in
reierouce appeals from the Court OF Claims rule l.
that Court sends here It's hnding Of facts
cstabIisned by the evidence, in the nature OF spe
Cia verdict" The evidence ~ not sent up This
finding is conclusive unless impeached Tor some error
in law appearing Oh the record. Here IN effect, the
complained Of is that the Court refused u state
the items OF It's account OF damages. Tins We have
required and, while under tho practice have
taUlished, LIBERAL provision should DO made Tor
VI questions OF law II seems TO that, this case,
the CLAIM oil the United States goes beyond
anything We ought 10 grant The Court might with
pr0prcty have been asked 10 state finding whether
any particular Item OF CLAIM or damage Was included
In its estimate, and If 80, what amount TO sucn u
finding exception might proper form be taken, and
taen Could be called upon 10 decide whether such
item legally the subject OF compensation III an
action lor damages lhe Uhteu states Can De required
to mako compensation 10 "a contractor Tor damages
which he has actually sustained by their default IN the
performance OF their undertakings to him. but TINS IL
the extent OF their liability The Court OF Claims.
More than compensation Tor damages actually sus-
tanned never be awarded against the United States.
In tins the Unitcd States asked the Court to Ind
First, the amount oil damage Qone to The building on
account Of exposure to the winter storms IN lis unn
ished condition; second, the amount resulting IRON
the retention of the skilled labor, &C., and third, the
deterioration IN the value oil materials All these
legitimate subjects OF inquiry by the Court IN
making up its nnal estimate, but We know OF no ruio
OF law or practice which requires court or jury TO
ltemize the elements Of the calculation by which
II arrives ut ITS nnal result. In this case the
Court was not asked To whether II Included this or
that supposed element Oi compensation IN It's judg
mcni Uut the ouly effort seems 10 have been To ascer
the items OF calculation 10 aetermine whether
the proof supported them. The whole contest evil
IDENTIFY the suicloncy OF the evidence, not as
To The Inability the United States II the facts as