Morning herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1837-1840, 1838-05-22

compelling the Court of Oyer and Terminer TO be
held there I'll
Resolutions referred To appoint two additional
Sunday officers in the 10th ward; TO memorallze the
delegation from this city in Congress to use their In
huence in forwarding the contemplated improvement
of the Allegheny River; 10 attend on Thursday next
at the City Hail. at the presentation Of stand OF CO.
Tors by the Mayor TO Col. Smiths regiment; TO re-
port plan for more equitable distribution OF lamp
tax TO place additional lamps in Stanton street; TO
inquire into alleged breach Of covenant the
part OF Stevens in relation to his lease Of the ferry
at the foot of Christopher street; to prevent licensed
ferry boats being drawn of for The purpose of towing
vessels. Adjourned.
SUPERIOR CoURT Monday, May 2l.-Before Judge
Oakley,
Tancred Payer VS.. Felix Moeney.-Action of Sian
public house that the plaintiff had paid his landlord
with forged check, and that the officers Of police
were in pursuit of him.
The learned Counsel for the defence stated that
had funds aAd that his client, being an Irshman,
called this forgery, and that the charge was not
made with malicious intent
The jury however, could not avoid finding ver-
dict for the plaintiff of six cents.
CeURr OF GENERAL SEssIoss.- Before his honor
the Mayor and Aid. Purdy and Waterbury.
In the case of William IL. Gregory, indicted for
obtaining from Mcssrs. Derby and Farnham, certain
promissory notes under false prcences, Hugh Max
well Esq. moved that the Indictment be qHashed, on
the ground of certain nfoImalitles in the draft OF
that instrument, and argued in support Of his mo-
ton.
Gen. Bogardus, for the prosecution, contended that
notice having been given TO the prosecution Of the
motion, the consideration OF i ought not 10 be enter
tanned by the court. Besides which, after the party
accused had pleaded to the indictment, motion to
quash was not IN order.
Mr. Maxwell admitted the correctness Of this doc
trne and changed his position by demsrring to the
Indictment
Bogardus argued that demurrer could not be en-
tcrtaned At this stage of the proceedings. If the
counsel for the accused had designed have pursued
this course they should have demurred previously to
the entering Of the plea. The cause had been set
down fer today, and the public prosecutor had come
prepared to try the case upon its merits.
The ordered that the Case be set down for full
argument at the opening OF the court this morning at
III o clock.
This decision having been made, the Recorder,
(who retained counsel in this case, prior to his
appontment) took his seat on the bench and the
Mayor obsguat6idted. tf s. t...
Harris the coIored man, who stands indicted for
murder, was brought from the cage, and asked by
the Recorder if he had the means Of employing coun-
sell Answering in the negative, the court stated that
they would provide him with professional aid prior
TO the commencement Of the Oyer and Terminer
term, at which he would be tried. r
The court then adjourned.
Couar 90 COMMON PLEAs-Beforc Judge Inxra.
ham.-Jesse Cady Vs. James Brooks, William HI.
Hudson and Robert F. Hudson.
This action was brought for the recovery Of pro-
missory note OF s943 81, and interest drawn BY VIM
H. and Robert f. Hudson, and endorsed by Brooks
& Hudssns-Oct. IL 1886.
Thomas p. Ketcll called TO the stand, and tes
tilted that the plaintiffs transactng business in
company in Oct. 1885, and that the signature to the
| note in court is that of Brooks q Hudson.
The notary's protest was then read and admitted.
Whereupsn the plaintiff rested his case.
J. Brooks opened the case IN his own defence-
The plaintiff he said was Wall street broker and
auctioneer, and he was the editor Of the ~ Ysrk
Express The points upon which he should rest his
defence, were first that no partnership ever existed
| between himself and VIM. III. Hudson the drawer,
the drawee and the endorsee OF the note although he
| admitted there was business transaction between
himself and Rebt- r. Hudson, tantamount TO part
nershp. Secondly, that the money obtained upon
the note by w. III. Hudson never went into the con-
Germ, never appeared upon the books, and that he
(Brooks) never heard Of il till he was sued for the
| amount.
Erastus Brooks deposed that he was the agent of
his brother, Of the defendants in this sat, and
| did not know of the existence Of partnership be.
/ tween the Hudsons and his brother. Was present
upon one occasion when w. i. Hudson made appli-
cation 10 become partner and he was rejected. The
| Hudsons were partners IN the Reading Room,
\ winch had no eonnexon whatever with the Express,
/ bat was distinct concern.
| w. b. Townsend, swore that he was one of the
propnetors Of the Daily Advertiser that he afterwards
joined that paper 10 the Express; Crooks and X. +.
| Hudson were at that time partners. Never knew w.
| +. Hudson 10 be partner in the Express. The
| amalgamation OF the two concerns took place in Mo-
vember 1896 The Hudsons were partners in the
| News Room, with which Brooks had nothing TO do.
| Ksttcll rccalled-The partnership Of the Express
| consisted Of James Brooks and r. f. Hudson. Wit
ness was in the employ Of VIM. III. * r. 4. Hudson
| the formed signed notes. and borrowed meney,
| which gave him an impression that he was partner
| In the concern
Two mortgages upon printing materials were here
shown, signed by the two Hudsons, and James
i Brooks.
| Charles X. Taylor produced four protested notes,
signed by Brooks and Hudsons, in the possession OF
i Rsbt. Hoe Il Co, press makers 4
4 VIM. Forsyth deposed that he had understood that
1 w. H., as well as Robt. f. Hadson and Brooks were
partners. The paper, he was told, when he engaged
to work upon " was to be conducted on the Euro
pcsR plan" Witness asked who the European plan
| meant--or in other words, who was to pay the wa
yes. To which the other repled-they should be
paid every week.
Smith Walter testified that he did not know any
other partners in the paper besides Brooks and X.
| F. Hudson. VIM. Hudson's name was put there to
represent Thos. Phenix's interest in the concern.
William Herrick testified that he once held note
givsn to him for work-ihat note paid TO him part
~ by X. E., and partly by w. II. Hudson who APP
peared to be the principal conductors Of the establish
ment Money vas rather scarce there--when APP
piled for wages Of one, he would refer to the 9TH
Witness presented bull once Of $50 for services
ana received Sill.
The evidence here closed, and the was submit
ted 10 the iury.