Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-05-23
IN THE JURY'S HANDS.
ARGUMENT IN THg SUIT OF HUBBARD VS..
BROWN & co. CONCLUDED.
The Jury After al Hours Conference Fails
TO Agres-Instructions Of the
Court, &c.

testimony anu DcsIluH asuH'hls anu 1do
case is now before the jury, With the pro-
liabilities strongly ln favor Of disagree
ment a. was The result OF the first trial.
When Judge Barton, who Is hearing the
case for judge Wexford, ascended the bench
az 10:15 a. NJ. yesterday all parties interested
were present and TIE assemblage Of specta-
tors wss large, 70 beng generally known that
the argument would be made during the day.
The array OF legal talent engaged in the case
and lbc prominence Of all Of the parties hti-
CANT, together with the grave questions In
VOWED. have served to attract large crowds
70 the courtroom all during the present and
former trial. II was thought that the speeches
would be SPICY aud spirited, and this served
% swell tbe crowd 10 even largeT numbers
than on former days.
TIE C0UK's INSTRUCTIONS.
Some little time was spent in discussing
some instruction desired by The plaintiff,
after which Judge Barton instructed The jury
as follows:
The Court lnsirucis the jury that II they
believe from the evidence that the 6rm Of j..
Thompson Brown & Co.. the defendants
were the agents Of the plaintiff with or with
out reward in the negOtiliiOn and sale OF The
property In the declaration mentioned, and
Shall also believe from the evidence that J.
Thompson Brown and Leroy L. Brown, two
of the members Oi said 1rm, we're the real
purchasers, though j. G.. Andrews appeared
90 The nominal purchaser, and that such fact
was NOT disclosed 10 the plaintiff, then the sale
tl said Andrews Was at tue option Of the plain
IN null and void. and The said i. Thompson
Brown. Leroy +. Brown, and j. q. An
.drcws became the trustees Of said property
for the benefit Of the plaintiff, who was
entitled % the enhancement OF the price at
which 30 was afterwards sold 10 Messrs.
Allison 81 Addison, with interest on said
ciasrcucc FROM the time OF such sale 10
Mc-,r-. Allison d Addison, subject, hoWey-
cr. 10 This case 10 commissions.
"Ihe jury is instructed thltf they believe
from ihe evidence that in the transactions in
the declaration mentioned the plaintiff was
me principal and the defendant firm his
agents; and shall also believe that by reason
Of unlawful acts by such firm as his agent
the plaintiff sustained loss, then each and all
the member, Of said firm are liable 10 the
plaintiff for such loss; and the fact that one
N the member, ~ such firm, though aware
OF such wrongful acts, did not participate IN
the fruits thereof. does not relieve him OF Ii
ability 10 The plaiutf for his actual loss.
"Ihc lury is instructed that The TACT OF
agency may be proved by Implication a. well
AS by EXPIRE, contract, written or oral; and
n they lchcyc from The evidence that The
defendants. iu the negotiation and sale Of
the Plaintiffs property in the declaration
mentioned, were really the agents Of the
plaintiff. their duties aud responsibilities to
him would lie plcci cly The same whether
the fact of agency was established by imph-
cation or by direct proof Of written or oral
contract OF agency.
. & .rft t,fn In
I'm and d,i,ndmts. may properly oe con-
sdcred ly the lury m determining the ques'
tiOn oi agency OF no agency
Tie muumOercd sections Or The Instruc-
tions are those offered by the plaintlG and
modified Hy thc Court; the five paragraphs
numbered are those presented hy the de-
fence and adopted by the Court without
change.
WHAT TIE PLAINTIFF WANTED.
Following are the original instructions for
which The plmnua asked:
"First. 'Che jury are instructed that they
must find for the defendants upon the issue
ioned in tIis case, uHles, they believe from
lh, evidence That tnc relation OF principal
and agent existed between the plaintiff and
defendants AZ the time Of tho slle referred 10
IN the declaration, and the mere simple re-
posing Of confidence or trust In the de-
fendsuts by the plaintiff dd not OF itsclI
constitute such agency, without the defend
ants having accepted the agency or under
taken g. discharge such trusts towards the
plani'h.
"Sccond. II the defendants were not the
agents of The plaintiff when the sale oi the
property IN the declaration mentioned was
made, then there was no obligation resting
upon them TO disclose the name or names OF
the person on persons la whose interest they
were acting, and 1t was not unlawful Tor
them 90 substitute the name Of another per-
son for that Of the real purchasers m con-
ducting said negotiations provided they bad
the consent Of that party TO do so.
"Tnrd. II the jury believe from The eyi-
dencc that the defendants were not the
a4.ui, OF the plaintiff 10 sell his property at
il >. Thompson Brown, senior D. en-
leroi the firm, called on the plaintln in
Apul. 1NNG, in regard TO the sale OF said pro-
pCrtv. aud shall further believe that in the
negotiations that followed the said plaintl
knew or had reason 10 believe that said
Brown was acting as agent Tor the purchaser,
and that in making the negotiation said
plaintiff dealt with him at arms length 1fd
delegated 70 him no other authority than to
close the sale at =, COO net 10 him, the said
plaintiff, then there were no SVch iduciary
obligations resting on the defendants or
either of them 10 disclose to the plaintil the
name of the purchaser n to prCventthen
from being the purchasers al the price
named.
"Fourth. The Court insructs the jury
that the question OF fraud IN this ease is de.
pendent upon the question whether the de-
fcndants were the agents OF the plaintiff al
the time. and even If they were his agents.
then il depends upon the extent OF their
agency. Ii the defendants, not being his
agents. approached the plaintiff in such
manner that he might reasonably believe they
represented q purchaser, and they declined
10 advise him as TO the price at
which he should sell, and the plain
IG, alter naming a price accepted an
olcr. and without rep0SnS other trust
or discretion in the defendants and without
reward to them merely empowered them 70
close " ith the purchaser M price sati-isc-
iorv TO plaintiff and that defendants under
took TO do no more than tins for plaintiff,
who i'm all other respects acted as his own
reprcsentattve throughout the transaction,
then the defendants, having discharged
their only trust TO the plaintiff when they
closed the bargain at his price, were guilty
OF no fraud IA taking the property in the
name Of Iohn G.. Andrews but 10 fact for j..
Thompson Brown and Leroy +. Brown.
"Filth. The Court further instructs the
jurv that the burden Of proof Is on the
plaintiff, ard that they shonld find verdict
in favor OF the defendant unless the pain
un shall maintain the issue m the cause by a
preponderance Of evidence
Mr. Allan made n general objection to the
instructions.
THE ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Allm opened the case for the plaintiff,
and WAS followed by Major \. II. COurtneY,
who made the first speech for the defence.
lie was followed by John ). Wise, Esq, one
Of his associates, who occupied the time un-
Ill nm hours recess was taken for dinner.
when the court re0penod at O'Clock
Colonel W W. Gordon opened IN an hours
speech, which was the closing one IN behalf
OF the defence. lie addressed himself most
particularly TO the legal aspect Of the case,
aud like those who preceded bin made avery
tine argument. Mr.. Allan came next, and
spoke for nearly two hours, giving the ease
10 the jury at few minutes before O'Clock.
After an hours retirement The jury re-
turned unable TO agree upon verdict, and
were adjourned over until ths morning at