SUPERIOR Count,
{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1374, "word_count": 246, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9337000250816345], "ccnet_perplexity": [1925.199951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Before Chief Justice Jones.


Dec 2-TPm Wths rs. X. L. Bell Thu care ia brought
from the Courts below and has been subjected TO til
different expressed opinions In the first instance
diet gwen for plaintiff It then Argued before
tIs Superior Court, and the verdict aside he
ground OF foimsiity. II was tnen submitted tn jury,
who separated, and went to their homes previous
rendition Of their verdict. which, under the circ
stances admitted bv the Court holding lsdc-
ton ard IL now comes before jury in this Court for
another decision The defence up Il, that the
cfthe endorser sded for the recovery VI in
question is forgery.


From the mass of testimony in this il is fair to
fer that It will occupy the attention Of the Court
three days The minute particulars Of this suit Will
be recolectei have been previously and fqy reported


Before Judge Oakley.


Charles NJ Peion rs Moses n Mas1y.-Ths suit is
brought for the recovery Of note Tor $3.50 81 at
months, and endorsed by John w. Moore The defence
rests upon the ground that this note passed
the hands Of the plaintiff security for old and doubt
ful debt that the legitimate purpose for which it
given was one Of accommodation and, therefore, it
misapplied by being found in the hands Of the party
bringing this action Following the charge Of the Court
the jury retired, and will bring in sealed verdict to-
m mn pinu