The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-02-08

+. = .
Feb. 10.-Las. L,Amoreour vs.. Richard J. Euas,s.
This was q case ia winch the plaintiff bough: q
house and let IL 10 his brother Andrew, who had
been unfortunate IN business The defendant sued
Of Chancery, and was appointed receiver ON his
furniture, but the plaintiff claimed IL, having
bought II 10 under landlords warrant jssued some
time previous, sued, and recovered Judgment. A
motion was then made e. have the verdict set
aside. Motion for new trial denied
Isaoc Jacques Merriam and Charles Bernard vs..
jacob Acksr.-The plaintiffs were engaged a. part
in the sale OF baskets at store in Cedar It.
The sheriff served an execution, which was deem
ed to be illegal and An actisn Of rrplevin brought,
which resulted in q verdict for plaioIiffs. mo.
tisn was made for new trial, principally with a
view to test the right Of the assignee to the pro
perry New trial anted, costs to abide the
James Bird and Hiram NJ Beardsies vs. Richard
PoHr;-rhc plaintiffs loaned S2oo ON q bank
chs6e, for aday or Two, giving for 1t out OF town
Of usury. but resulted IN favor Of plaintiffs mo-
ton was made for new trial The Court stated
that no usury had been exercised, the out OF town
money wss payable ia specie at the counters Of the
banks Issuing IL. New trail denied. lsga eiff
abraham Bassford vs.. Thomas Birdsau. This
was an action 70 rec yer the value 1.-TWO billiard
tables sold in 1851, the defence 10 which was the
statate Of limi atoms witness testified 10 de-
feadant, havung been out of the state part OF the
time, and verdict was rendered for plaintiff. A
motion was made 10 set aside the verdict ON the
ground that III witness had not been correctly in.
ieraed. ~ the defendant resided Buffalo, and had
not lsft the State New trial granted with costs TO
abide the event., . r.l Il
Ed,card Sanford vs.. 7He Mayor, Corporation,
&c, Of Nttc Y0rk.-Ths was action brought by
the plaintiff 70 the amount Of his salary
one Uf the Juanes of the Court Of General Ses-
sions, which VA oppo-e the grouad, FIRST, that
the law creating the judges was Unconstitutional,
not having bees passed by a two-third vote, and,
secondly, that aoejes could not be brought against
the Common Cosneil for the amount The Court
stated that all the objections had been passed upon
BY the Supreme Court, and decided in favor Of the
law. and sl.o y. Eieht e sue the Corporation
M-aiAsc M PAun W. Lyon L<ri.-This was an
action, the Csart stated, which rested entirely
upon questions NJ fact II was relative TO large
lot OF goods pledged to defendant, and which he
sold under eircumstanees Of rreat loss 70 plaintiff
Verdict was given Tor hitter Motion for new trial
denied. t ! .sr ~ ~ ,..I. ~. 49,. Ia .l VI
Peter Siuyresant Vs. Catherine W'oods and Others.
This was action on the non payment of rent,
to recover back premises leased to deceased ten
ant but the defendants claimed that they wero I'D
ministrAtors, and were cnttlsd 20 year to settle
No the estate. The Court held that . landlord, in
such ease - the present. had right 10 possessiun,
II the lease were not complied with. aud verdict
was given for plaintiff Judgment affirmed.
Edssord Dunscossbe 1n1 Others, 0eorgia hssu
rance COMPANY -This was . demurrer to declr-
ration. The plaintiffs injured vessel for year
to run between certain ports, but she went beyond,
and was lost. Judgment for defendant, with leave
to amend within ten days, IN psymest Of eosts
ttr Ni hN ----------->---->-- ,T1rlt ~