The New York herald., 1845-02-07
Common Pleas.
nnlnro nern IA q M

JAN 6.-The People &c vs. james G. Utters This nc.
required by the wife person Of the OF stanzen
banch for whose maintenance defendant had become
curity for the husband.
tore situate in the 9Th that sometime in July
s43, she taken to the Tolce Office at the express
being satisfactorily proved that this the case
she was subsequently released charge was then pre-
,ered against hm LOT an sssan ana battery alleged 10
Of his wife, about three months previous to the
transactions above alluded to- This having been
proved, nominal fine was imposed upon him,
and he was bound in recognizances to keep the
peace for six months Sometime after this from continued
i'll treatmeot the wife obliged TO seek protection
Ter the rocf of her father and although
by the wife offered for reconciliation and that for that
our pose she called to SEQ her child when she was again
turned ont OF doors That previous TO this latter affair
he had entered into bond for her support for which,
before, said defendant is security.
subject to eplepc fits; that during the continuation of
these fits from the noise she created and the cries
she uttered she would incline person to believe
that person maltreang her In support OF tins
testimony physician was produced. who coroborated
the former allegation and also that both before and after
these fits she not right in her head Farther that
Stanzenbacks wife had left his house voluntarily; that
he had made several applications for hsr return
of his being put to serious inconvenience
count of her absence And he made it point
leave his doors cpen that she might have
any occasion And in conclusion that there was no ex
House. nor any liability incurred by them Verdict this
forenoon.
Before Judge rlshoefer.
Lucu Cossens u.s. finn Proudfost This action
brought to services rendered
4 servant When the case was opened by the plaintiff,
certain objections oe ed by defendants counsel to
he deposition OF an absent witness The cause was ad
iourned ever until Tomorrow,
John W. Woodward Us Robert shinn.-This action
brought by the former mate of the barque Iwanowwa"
compensation for an alleged malicious prose-
cuon II appeared that while the barque was lying a,
he port Of Bordeaux in August lest, the plaintiff lent to
the brig Historian few pounds Of coffee and buck
et to when the vessels should meet again
New York-and such avors shown to be OF frequent
occurrence On their arrival at this port the articles IN
subsequently the plaintiff instituted action against the
Captain for assault and battery and deputy sheriff was
that woodward bad man, and he would arrest him
stealing. This threat he put into execution by hav
missioner on the charge Of stealing the goods in ques
tion, and subsequently, discharged No defence was
offered and the jury found verdict for plaintiff Of S225
damages and cents costs.
This action Of repevin brought to recover GER
an banners and other property belonging to the above
wncn ~ was n n n. yaar sss ,bs %
icers OF the society elected Constantine Donohoe
being appointed treasurer and defendant secretary In
aers Sc Upon Collins refusing to give them up this
action is brought to compel the secretary to obay the
regular demand Of the who in accordance with
the byeaws the proper officer to hold the property
question: well the funds of the society he bye
laws were as matter Of course introduced as evidence
and the Court gave his opinion that byelays long in
use are primd Jace evidence, in contest between
poraton and its members. The byelaws then read
and set forth that the should hold a the funds
banners and other property, above stated was then
proved that Donohue appointed to the Office of rea-
during last year Witness being afterwards asked
TO whom the property in question belonged replied that
according to the constitution they belonged to the trea
sursr which decision OF law Mr. Brady requested the
Court to note his exception. Evidence was then
introduced to show that the treasurer elect had
complied with the requistons Of the bye-laws by
giving bonds for the faithful keeping Of the property
in question The witness testified that bond was exc
cuted by Mr. Logue, but it was not shown that the
ciety ever accepted any report Of said committee with
respect TO the bond subsequently, at the request of Mr.
Lorue the bond destroyed, he wishing to sell his
property.
March ls4l and made the demand for the property in
the June following, and refused in consequence OF
want Of security.
Defendants have not yet opened their cause.
Verdict this forenoon.