r,ari.,c Court.
{"character_count": 1964, "word_count": 337, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9430999755859375], "ccnet_perplexity": [2271.300048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
before JUDGES snermon ana bmitn.


JuLr l.-Coniempfof Cowf-Dienity 81 he Rar.F II.
summoned TO show cause why he should not 10
Of criminal contempt Of conrt, asking to Know the
charge against him fHE


The Couar-You charged with having used threat.
ening and personal violence towards Justice Smith hav
ing elevated your in q threatening strike
hin, in court and used Other indignitiss.


MIR Bryan hereupon apologized upon which The court
remarked that this the first offence Of the kind his
,poogy would be accepted but hereafter, the comt
would invariably punish, with fine and imprisonment,
my person guilty Of such improper and discidery
duct towards the Bench.


Before Judge Smith.


JrLY ii Jesse ID Flinf and Elisha Kirby vs. WIiiam
a. Gu,stThe following involves question Of con-
siderable importance TO merchants in general The
plaintiffs country merchants. who bought bill Of
goods oil the defendant who is wholesale dealer do
mrstic goods at Ne rs Cedar street Having settled their
the ensuing day On the day following, acartnsn
chilled for the goods nnd took them away since which
nothing has been heard Of either goods
The present action Il in FORM for the delivery Of the
goods The question involved in the case is W neither
the goods having been paid for snd ordered TO lie deliver


risk OF the vender the purchaser The Court having
taken time 10 consider decided that though goods iod and
EFT with the seller the risk Of the purchaser and
they lost deteriorate Without the seler) fault,
he is not responsible; yet that every merchant
bound 10 take ordinary lor such care every pTu
- with him be called for, and that they be proper
delivered 70 those authorized to receive them md that


this the def ndan not having sqnired the cart
produce the usual receipt order book other
authority to get the goods had e sxercsed that oTdns
y which the law encintd and he should therefore
For plaintiffs, Mr. A. H. Lockwood; for defendant, Mr..
Daniel EPan.