Los Angeles herald., 1891-07-12
Judge Van Dyke Clears Up
His Docket.
A Number Of Important De-
cisiOns in Department Four.
Can Perjury Be Committed Before
Notary Public ?
Two Divorces Granted by Judge Smith
Judge Van Dyke Gives a Defini-
tiOn of Real Property Court
Notes and New Cases.

Judge Van Dyke has been doing a
great deal of work during the past week
in order to clear his department of busi-
ness during the summer vacation, and
in the past two days has handed down
no less than ten decisions on cases
which he has had under consideration.
Yesterday was unusually prolific of such
decisions in department four. The
case of Henry w. King & Co. vs.. J. T.
Steward, which was tried several weeks
ago, was disposed OF in the following
ruling:
The plaintiffs are clothing house in
Chicago, and the action is for balance
due on claim for goods sold and de-
livered to the defendant. The main
item of difference about which the con-
tention in this suit is, arises from loss
on the return of some of the goods. The
defendant ordered the goods by letter
to Mr.. Cook, who was acting for the
plaintiffs, the Chicago house, asking
him to send not to exceed two thousand
dollars worth of boys and children's
clothing, and adds: Il want the priv
ilege of returning anything may want
to, but if you take proper care l will not
return anything in all probability Mr..
Cook turned this letter over to the
plaintiffs, the Chicago house, and they
shipped the lot OF goods to fill the
order, and January 9Th, 1889, Mr.. Cook
sent the defendant letter in which he
says: IT am Observation-Disclosures two
thousand, so you can return anything
you think would not suit your mar
ket."
The evidence shows that the plain
tiffs sent goods to the value of $472.60
more than Mr.. Stewards letter called
for, and the bill accompanying the goods
contained the following statement:
I'VE will allow no goods to be returned
after ten days from their receipt
Mr.. Cook testiies that the first time
they were notified that Mr.. Steward
found fault with the goods was his letter
of May Sth, 1889, in which he states that
Mr.. Fitzackerly had discovered in going
through the stock that they did not
need the long pant suits, and asked the
privilege of returning them, he paying
the freight charges and getting other
goods in place thereof, and asking Cook
to wire him if he would consent. Cook
turned this letter over to the
house, and the plaintiffs at once
telegraphed Mr.. Steward, and on the
same day, the 18th OF May, wrote Mr..
Steward refusing to permit him to re-
turn the goods. May 18th, after receiv
ing the telegram from the plaintiffs,
Mr.. Steward writes another letter in
which he says he had not handled boys
clothing enough to find out he had made
a mistake: "And 1 ask you to help me
out" On May %, 1889, plaintiffs wrote
another letter to the defendant in
answer to his letter of May 10Th to
Cook, in which they again refused to
receive the goods and used the following
language: ''If you had on receipt OF
the goods, or within reasonable time
thereafter, advised US, we should will
ingly have received them from you,"
adding, 1--WE will, no wever, say this to
you: You may return the goods with
the long pants, and we will handle them
the best we can for you and will credit
you with whatever we can get for
them" Immediately upon the receipt
of this letter by the defendant and on
the Goth day of May, 1889, he packed up
15I suits and shipped them to the
plaintiff, the Chicago house, and sends
the bill with letter as follows: 1--WE
send you today per freight 151 suits, bill
enclosed as per your letter OF instruction
May 22d. Yours truly,
J. T. STEWARD.
Per L."
The bill shows that sixteen lots were
returned, giving the numbers of each
lot, which corresponded with the same