Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-05-24
THE JURY DISAGREES.
NO VERDICT IH TIE HUBARp-BRowH
DAMAGE sUrr
One Juror Withdrawn and the Others Dis
eAargeo-How They stood-rnsiruc-
tiOnG that we're Desired.

The second trial OF the damage suit Of r.
I. HUBBARD rs. J. Thompson Brown & Co.,
Ike the first one, resulted in the Jury failing
10 agree upon a verdict.
When Judge Barton. who heard the case
for Judge Wexford. asccuded the bench OF
The City Circuit Court yesterday morning at
ii O'Clock, the jury, who on .he pre-
Vous evening failed 10 reach an agree
tnent, we're sent out, and after sD
hours retirement fled into court and
the foreman informed the Court that no
verdict had been sCreed upon. This being
tbe case Judge Barton withdrew one Juror
ard the other eleven were Glsch1rged. This
carries the case over 10 the next regular term
Of the court, which commences the third
Monday IN October. unless IN the mean time
il shall be decided TO hold 4 special term for
iis trial. The Jury, il j. stated, stood four in
favor OF q verdict for the plaintiff and eight
In favor OF the defendant. on the former
trial the jury stood nine 10; and three against
4 verdict.
INSTRUCTIONS WANTED BY THE TLATNTIFF.
Below win be found the original instruc-
tions ssked for by the plaintiffs counsel.
By q mistake made ia the compOsing.roOm
q part OF the instructions given by the
Court were made TO appear In yesterdays
issue a. those for which the plaintiff asked.
On the other band, they were offered by
the defendants aud adopted by the Court
without change, as would have appeared
il ths report oi tie case had the copy been
PIT in type in proper order.
The instructions wanted by the plaintiff
read:
First. II the jury believe from the eyi-
dcncc that ~ April. 1856. }. Thompson
Brown & 90. were agents for pltintih 10 sell
MS Gracc-strcct house. aud while 50 enl-
poyed approached plaintiff through J.
Thompson Brown. with the information that
they had probable purchaser Tor the Broad
street property. and the plaintiff then gave
y. Thompson Brown authority to sell, and
shortly after j. Thompson Brown reported
sale and receipt OF part Of the money for
plaintiff, thcn they must consider that J.
Thompson Brown & Co. were the agents
for the pl'intif in that transaction, and il
they further believe from the evidence that
J. g. Andrews was not the real purchaser,
though 80 reported by the agents, but that
one or more Of said Grm were, then they
must consider said sale fraudulent and void
and find for tho plaintiff in which case
the measure Of damages will bo the differ
cnce between the sale reported ana the sale
TO Allison ~ Addison, with I0tcrc,t thereon
from the date OF la,tn3med sale. and with or
without deduction OF commissions 10 the
defendants, a. the jury may think right.
Second. The Court further iustructs the
Jury that II they believe from the evidence
thar in the transaction in the declaration
mentioned the plaintiff was principa and the
defendant firm was his agent, ana that one
OF the members Of the firm, though aware Of
the wrong ul acts done in the name OF the
flrm, did not participate in the fruits thereof,
nevertheless this does not relieve him Of lia.
biify for the actual loss thereby caused to
the plaintiff.
Third. The Court instrucis the jury that
the law will I'm proper case hold parties
bound a. agents. even though there was no
express contract, either verbal Oi written,
whereby the agency was established, and II
they believe from the evidence In this case
thar the alleged contract Of sale to j. G. An
drews was not msde by Il. 4. HUBBARD in
person, but that J. Thompson Brown & co.
cllimcd that they had struck the bargain and
received 3l00. whereby HUBBARD was bound,
IN such eases the jury should regard J.
Thompson Brown & Co. - agents for Hubbard
IN thar transaction a1d should find FOR the
plaintiff. assessing bis damages "a In first.
instruction directed.
Fourth. II the Jury believe from the
evidence that the conduct Of The defendants
i'm tbs case was such that the plaintiff
naturally regarded them As his agents and
relied on them "a such, and was by their
representations induced 10 close the sale,
then the Jury should regard the sale to j.
G.. Andrews as a nullitv and should find for
the plaintiff and assess his damages as In iirst
instruction.