The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-09-14
Vice ChanceliOr's Court.


SEPT 3-DEClsIoNs-Joseph S. Jones vs.. Charles
X. 1horne.-The defendant is the well known and
enterprlsing proprietor of the Chatham Theatre =
Some time since it will be recollected an inlunc-
from playing two dramas" the Surgeon of Paris, +"
| and the Carpenter of Rouen," which had been got
up in a splendid manner, and announced for per-
Torrance at the Chatham. Previous TO the injunc-
ton being granted, bond was required in the OF
$1,000 to indemnity defendant should the complaint
be not well founded. The bond was given jointly
by the complainant, OOnes) and Thos s. Hamblln.
Subsequently the Injunction was dissolved, and the
defendant made application that the bond should be
delivered to him, in order that he might seek his
ton in a Court of Law, or that damages should be
assessed by Master. Defendant testified to having
been SIX weeks In getting the dramas prepared,
which was done at great expense, and that the IN
junction was laid on the evening they were an
nounced to be played, inducing many persons TO
leave the Theatre and get the money back, and
otherwise causing TO him great loss. Ordered that
the bond be deliver ID to defendant, and that the es
tlmony taken before Master, may be used by obi
:, wth,am $. watkins vs. FTuna,n .. numey -
heatlng to mortgage given by defendant for
S1oO0 on lea iehold property on the Sd avenue, sub
lect to previous mortgage, which had been contest
ed-Ordered, that the plea be overruled with costs
TO- be taxed, and that defendant answer the
bill, &c.
Bryant f. Boggs vs.. n. j. Hudda,t, and others
On ajldgment for 500 due by Mr.. H. previous 10
his assignment, and asking that the assignment be
broken Motion denied, delay having occurred
before making the application) with costs.
Mechanics Bank vs. Holmes Fan Mater, ,cie and
the ground that it infringes the 9Th rule Such
was not the case Motion denied with costs.
Wdfer Commissioners vs. James Bailey and John
Baify.-The defendants owned 100 acres land on
the margin OF the Croton River, and had the advan
tage OF superior water power. There was large
family OF them, consisting of father and several
sons, who had been long and successfully engaged
IN the manufacture otron Their works, however
rebuilt owing to knowledge that the water power
would be taken from them. The present is one of
the appeals from the award of the assessors the lat
ter having given to defendant $1,000 damages for
the diversion Of the water to the Croton reservoir
which the Commissioners declare to have been too
much. Under all the circumstances of the case the
Vice Chancellor considered the amount not to
be too high, and confirmed the award, with the re-
mark that it was not to be considered precedent
for other uness they present precisely similar
facts
Elisabeth Stuyvemnt Champlin and Vim. G.
Jones Us. Henry Parih.-Mrs. Elizabeth De Peyster
died In 1921, leaving large estate, and the CON-
claimants, in connection with John Clark and Ebert
Herring, her executors.-Mr. Clark died. and Mr.
Herring removed to another State, IN consequence
OF which he was displaced by the Surrogate. Mrs.
Champlin was to have all the income of the proper
y till her youngest child attained the age oftwenty
one years, after which the estate was to be divided
equally between the children of the two daughters
OF testatrix, (Mrs. G. and Margaret De Peyster) A
lew SIX lois III preene anu fOurtn sis,
belonging to the estate put up at auction, and
bid off by defendant He subsequently refused TO
take them or even to pay the 10 per cent deposite
according to the terms OF sale. Complaint
made in this court to compel him to do so, but he
demurred on the ground that Mr.. Herring should
have been party TO the proceedings and the title
Mr. H., in answer, offered TO be as respected the
latter. Demurrer overrued, with COSTS the defend
ant to have 20 days to put in further answer &c.
Bechfel f. Dreyr, VS. Britain M. Gutter, Josiah
Montague, and Jesse w. Benedict-The defendant
b. M Cutter, states that in July, 1889, being the
time worth 25,O0O he entered into co-partne rship
with Mr.. Montague in the dry goods jobbng bust
ness, under the firm of Cutter and Montague Mr..
M. had no capital, but possessed excellent business
ability In Jan. lS4l owing 10 severe losses they
compelled TO make an assignment to MIR. Bene-
dict Ito whom they owed large sum of money for
counsel fees) on behalf of certain creditors, &C.
The compliments aver that they hold judgment
against the firm for ST. 800, and pray that receiver
may be appointed on the assigned property, some
real estate, &c, having been made over to another
assignee for the benefit Of persons named To this,
Mr.. Gutter replies OATH that in 1890, being worth
So, 900, he married at Montreal, S. c., young
lady named Goodenough, on whom he previously
settled $1,000 that in the distress Of the house OF
Cutter d Montague, he prevailed on her to loan the
firm So, OO giving her security, had been alluded
to. Ordered that the case be referred to a MASTER
who will appoint receiver the property and ef-
fects of the firm, and Of each of the individuals CON-
posing it, except that portion which has been as |
signed to Mr.. Benedict and which he claims to hold |
as assignee; costs to abide the event