Ist, I'd, and 3d Wards Court.
{"character_count": 4249, "word_count": 727, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9653000235557556], "ccnet_perplexity": [1079.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



sErr 7aadds". Sanford and samuel f. Wilson us:
James Gordon Bennett This action of assumpsit
brought against the editor Of this paper under the follow
ing circumstances will be generally recollected that
in the month OF October 1872 Mr.. Bennett entertaining
the project Of removing to and establishing newspaper
in the city Of London offered for sale the entire Herald
establishment including buildings fixtures, sc. At the
time the advertisement appeared in this paper was ac
compsnied with request that be insertedn the various
newspapers throughout the United States its hange
list h notice in the editorial columns Of each paper. d.
on h @ a. mo IL ~ e. hsv wa, s
propietors Of the Mobile Journal and Register published
in Mobile, Alabama, and that the advertisement referred
above specified and the present suit brought by them
for the purpose ofrecovering the bill for advertising


The plaintiffs to make out the case on their part, first


JAMES Row, as Witness who being sworn. testified
that he had been in the employ Of the defendant for
period Of six years preceding the first Of December last
bookkeeper that he considered the defendant his
ployer that the defendant the general director Of the
business operations OF the Herald establishment and that
he employed the hands, also did the foreman some
tmes that the hands paid by received in the
money generally of the establishment paid hands
Of it. and deposited the surplus in the bank to the credit
Of the defendant "a He, aid dated Oct 26h Is42
tanning the advertisement referred to. here shown to
the witness, and he asked If the paper issued
from the Herald establishment and he recoected the
advertisement above alluded to- The witness answered
that he judged by the general appearance Of the paper
that it wss and that he recollected the fact ohe adver
tsement.


On cross-examination the witness answered that he
judged Of the genuineness Of the paper from its similarity
10 papers issued from that establishment and that ne
could not answer positively whether 1t had been issued
from this establishment not 1.-THE counsel for the de-
endant then objected to the raTer insuficiently
proved which overrued by the Court, and the de-
cision excepted to-


Hoyr SANFORD then called for by the plaintiff and
being sworn testified that he written to by the plain
tiff collect the bill against the defendant; that in Nov
S42 he had been in the employ OF painthat they were
joint proprieors Of the Mobile Journal and Register The
witness then asked il the advertisement in the Herald
the inserted in the plaintiffs paper7 To this evil
dence the counsel Tor the defendant insisting that
the paper the best evidence should be produced
The counsel for the plaintiff waved the question and
then asked whether advertisement such shown
the witness (which alleged to have been cut from
the plaintiff parer was inserted in their paper for
week This question also objected to by the
sci for the defendant the ground that part pa
per could be produced without the whole The court
The witness answered that it The witness then es-
tilted that SIT SO the proper charge for inserting the
advertisement six times that he presented the bill to the
defendant and that he refused to it, ordering him to
quit his premises.


The then rested the part of the plaintiffs
and evidence being offered the part of the defe
ant 1t agreed etween the counsel for the respective
PARTIES that the should enter upon its minutes that
they consented that further eridencc should be adced
in the case, and that it should be submitted to the court
upon the plaintiffs evidence.


The counsel for the defendant then contended that the
plaintiffs must fail to recover on two grounds:


t That 1t did not appear from the evidence that their
paper the trchangs list Of the Herald; and,


ID That did appear that any notice had heen pub
lshed in the editorial columns Of the plaintiffs paper
calling the attention of capitalists to the advertisement
these two defects by introducing further evidence but
the court held that the entered into between him
and the defendants counsel was conclusive and had de-
prived the court Of all discretion in the matter


the costs. Forplh Nelson Chase Esq. For det B. Gal
braith, Esq.