PFsss Two Cents.

Common Pleas.
{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1976, "word_count": 350, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9857000112533569], "ccnet_perplexity": [1545.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



Before Judge Ulshocfer.


JUNE 4--Elsha Faron vs. Chayles C. Fa spl<n-Thia
was an action 10 recover $780, the ouut of cask
oil delivered by plaintiff 10 defendant For the defence
II was shown that the oil Of die rent quality from
that agreed for and that had notified thc pai
tif Of the fact and offered return it, Sealed verdict
this morning. 1o s


For plaintiff, Burr Benedict. For defendant. Mr.. A.
Crist.


Before Judge DAILY.


Joseph Nc Dermon vs. Corfiond A. Paimer--This was
an action to the amount Of contract under
lien law In October l844 the defendant entered into
contract with two builders, named McCullagh sni
Weeks to build thirteen houses for him. In December
following, he entered into contract with them,
w.t. that he would sell them the lots which the houses
were to be built and the buildings; that they should go
old contract and that he would furnish them with funds
to carry on the work that when the buildings were
finished he would give them deed upon their giving to
MIN simultaneously mortgage all the houses. Sub
sequently, McCulagh and Weeks contracted with the
plantf to flag the houses and the 9Th Of January,
lsi5 he commenced his work and finished by the month
OF June following. McCuagh Weeks were unable
brought his action and had verdict rendered In his
favor the verdict was afterwards set aside, and Q
trial granted. The case again called yesterday,
and after tho plaintiff had closed his case nonsuit
moved for two grounds First that tho contract
cuted in October roscinded by the contract Of the
2is December which took the ownership Of the pre-
perty out Of Palmer and vested it in McCullagh 4
Weeks tho oct requiring that person to be charged
uader 1t should be the absolute of the property,
upon which tho lien claimed 10 be due. The second
ground was involved in the first namely that thero
no money due by defendant the time Of the service Of
the notice by the plaintiff The Judge took mis- same
view, and granted the nonsuit