New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1844-04-22
CITY INTELLIG EN- CT .
L. $. CIRCUIT COURT. Before Judge Belts.
NInil Robbery.

L. s CIRCUIT COURT. Before Judge Belts.
Mail Robbery.
TRIAL OF WILLIAM HoFF.-This case was con.
euci to-day Mr. Jordan ably Summed up Tor the defendant,
aud Mr. Hoffman his Usually effective and eloquent manner
on behalf OF the United States. The Jury. after being absent
fifteen returned verdict OF! Guilty. and the prisoner
rcnnudcd.
CouRToF COMMON PLEAS. Before judges ULsuoffgn.
ISGLIs and 1SGRAHAM.
DEcisIoN-E. ii. Ludlow & CO. vs. Thomas
Decentralization to recover per commission on SIS
100 Tor sale of property 81 Pine strecA had been en-
tered. Motion for trial allowed
SUPERIOR COURT. Before Chief Justice Joyrs and
judges OAKLEY aud NANDEP0EL
DECISioNs.-Wm. Nj. Mitchell public admins
Moses Y Beach,-3r. Beach held an assignment
from Dr. Wand Of household furniture. which sold by
Mr. Beach after tecc,se OF Dr. w The public administrator
took on, letters the and sued Mr. Beach for the
amount couendin- that the transfer was not valid and par
ual verdict given for plaintiff Motion made for u trial.
The Court considered tina, the public administrator is bound to
shcw he was acting 70. other creditors of Dr. Wards New
tnal allowed
MANNING SEAToS vs.. EDWARD c. CoRwIN-
Action Notes. being part for 900 EACH given to
S:ebbtDS. Wood & Colt cnnendel that the steamboat
fus King given sold Of all the notes while
the plaintiffs contend that She sold Tor Only four of ,en-
New trial allowed.
john Van DySE VS.. UEAH RYDER-aIr. RYDER
coecuTy with Mr. d. Cooper action of replcvr
but judgment recovered against them. Mr. Cooper pad
the amount and seeks through plaintiff recover the whole
amount OF r Ryder The Court held that co-sucty after
he has pad the bond his associate recover pro-
portion. but cannot him the Judgment ioI the
whole amount Judgment for defendant
DAVID B. and WILLIAM NOSES vs.. FREDERICK
MEAD and o;her.lhe plaintiffs purchased Aessrs Mead
Co. nearly Slto worth Of beef IN barrels. and paid fer it
The beef proved 10 be usond aud brought by
MesSrs Moses the the ground Isl that
there implied warranted OF lis soundnc by Mr. Mead
from the fac, Of it; beng known intended for the food OF
and should be suitable for suchad 3D. that there was
an express warran,ee The Jury returned verdict for plaintiff
the implied subject to the opinion OF the Court
point and for defendant the question express
rantee. The Court subsequently gave opinion declaring that
the sale of provisions other property of the kind there
implied law. but the rule of emptor
it tie purchaser take heed must he permitted prevail
Judgment therefore given for defendant this point
Plaintiff and that the ury owing the
charge Of the presiding Judge the trial lost sigh, OF the point
asto express wnrancc. and asks for trial New trial
granted provided that plaintiff pays costs. and s,pua,es that
the event Of his the damages shall be lmiedto 400
dollars.
AwNINGs.-In suit brought by the Corporation
against the proprietor Oft store for penalty having
tending from his and the sidewalk the
the Cour; decided that the Corporation by
ordinance, permits AWNINGS To he placed the sidewalks
front OF buildings, 10 with awning posts placed direct
y inside of the curb stones there he objection
beng placed such boards teung necessary
support the awnings In the prcSca, instance the board
two feel WIDE width which could not be considered
and the party therefore should pay the Verdict for
defendant.
Before Judge OAKLEY.
join a. ELLIS vs.. JAMES Is. AYRES, RICHARD
A. CHAMBERS and JunS w. STANDARDIZATION for
Tpass To the value Of wugonrhe Cont charged
that WILDE question for full Bench to decide whether
not horse and wagon used i'll business within the term
team expressed the Exemption Law 1t will he for
the Jury TO determine whether the plaintiff hud $40 worth
household furniture. OF tools of trade without If he
Ind he cannot recover. Verdict for plaintiff $50