Court Intelligence.
{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1031, "word_count": 186, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9854999780654907], "ccnet_perplexity": [1355.199951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
MARINE CouRr, Aug. 22.--Before Judge Waterman -
William Hamilton Us. Samuel RosenthaI.-Ths was an
action Of assumpsit, to the amount of lost
note II appeared that the note drawn in 1889 in
plaintiffs favor for $54 50 by defendant and made pay
able in four months after date. The note was subse-
became due, on Sd November 1882 having been taken
from the plaintiffs pocket with other papers, when It
duly advertised the day following, ath Novem-
sequsny had between the parties which were 10 nego


ated as to render the invalid Proof was put in
to show that plaintiff had sold goods to defendant since
the making OF the note but did not appear that any
dealings were transacted between them since the note
lost Defendant set up that subsequent dealing DO.
the note was paid and threw the pro5and plain
ti recurring him show that the note not taken
up in due course and paid at maturity The Court feel


ing FULLY satisfied with the proof part OF plaintiff rem
dered Judgment in his favor for the full amount Ssa co.
with costs, sc.