Common Pleas.
fra lnll0o nal.
{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p2", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1979, "word_count": 342, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9247000217437744], "ccnet_perplexity": [1965.199951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



JAN 2o-W 7. Waiams vs.. Bsrenf Dekyn.-Practising
at the BdrThis action Of trespsss assault snd
battery, growing out of law affair." which the deftn.
dant (who s lawyer) employ ed against the plain
TIFF. They met, it appeared in the Park, in September
last and had angry alteration the subject, when
endant demurred to the decloa and "fled the
face" (not of the record but the plsin the usual piles
in bar" in the shape Of "smasher," which he conended
in kmins striking proof-a regular argimenfm bac
num to rebut the allegation of the plaintiff II al
legged that nasmuch plaintiff he'd called the defendant
"a lawyer" Qisr which could not in law be considered
nuisnomer the plaintiff had right to for the
legged assault.


The defence put in was, that the word used was of
very different import-namey liar" which amounted
in law to offence that justified the application of the
most prompt remedy for redrss and under the crcum
stances the defendant felt II bis duty in vndcaton
the privileges Of the profession to decepe Deckly ny the
appeal" the premises; contending thst the modus
optrdnd in all such made and provided ought
TO be spped without fail The jury considering that
defendant acted in strict accordance with the principles
ofcommon law found q nominal verdict foS plaintiff Of
six cents damages which carries but six cents costa
very just verdict


The members Of the profession should give Mr. Dek


Before Judge Ulshoeffer.


Jusfin d. Miller VS.. John Hemmngwdy-.a hint to Tee
tsfais.s This was an action to recover damages for
breach Of warranty in the sale Of quantity OF brandy
sold by defendant to pl'nti which engaged it
alleged to be of the best quality Of cogniac brandy II
casks to con ain 223 gallons but examination the
brandy turned out to be only worth 28 cents gallon
and the quantity did not than l46 gallons
and that fraud the eore committed part o defen
dant The defence pleaded correct dealing The jury
will render sealed verdict this forenoon.