New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-12-22
Law Courf..

Law Courts.
CIRCUIT Coua7-Sefore Jadse EirIoais- FiFs'2s9R
vs. Fs-q-4s1l-n IL rec { aSs -Ibe respective ccUn
SCI were engaged yesterday afternoon snd last evening
in summing up.
COUNTY CoUxr.-Jpdse u!shoct-r IN the Chair
Present the judges OF the Common Pleas tie Mayor
tee Recorder. and most of the Aldermen
{gsGay OF Mr. ii1s.sli will be rccoiiectei that Nh
Haste one Of the clerks OF the Lower Police appointed
By the Native american party, was declSred TWO or
three weeks since 10 be insane and was committed 70
:he I.uaaSc Asylum, al Blsckwcls Island, WHERE lie
now is. ltbec0aies necessary for the County GoGr'
according 70 law hear evidence aud decide whether
or no, hey consider h insanity permanent or tempo
rary Il the former, the office : 10 % declared vacant
and a new appointment made.
Tie Court, BY resolution agreed TO meet on iEGrs'
dav next A. O'Clock The s;idayits OF Drs. TompklnS
and Holmes on which Mr. II. committed TO the asy'
lun, are 10 he referred The District Attorney that he
NAV present the before the Court The charges
framed from such 70 be served upon Mr. Haste
Also that Dr.. Steward in whose custody NJ H. "a
appear with the said John B. II at This Court on Thurs
d.y and bc prepared himself and also Win such otner
t,irouT - l,ay De necessary show the tGcts IN the
case and that Mr. H. be informed OF sGch IN order that
he may be prepared for his defence
Messrs Dny!d and John Graham appeared. Tie Tor
uler stated ,at sscy did counsc! rs they
had not been authorised by Mr. II that they could not
whether Mr. II would be prepared =: that time or not
The Court al luraei 70 ihufsdsy
SUPERIOR Cousr.-D = sion-B. i. Ctaeg5si aaa
ofcrs ezec4.Jr, Of Smith HfTTtat i,c5 ". Edgar HuT
a
dcrstanl. usury. Verdict tor plaintiff confirmed
Beior. Judge Vanderpool-Ro5rt +. .'iS''o.c vs. je-
sepi r. Noas>-The ilniatit Is counsellor at law lie
sues To recover about 90 counsel fees IN prosecuting
suit for $50 ucinst Mr. Peter Lambert which suit
unsuccessful The defence is that in lSi2 or lS'3 Mr..
Lambert applied "a sir. Nones TO obtain Tor him loan
OF money FOR which lie agreed 70 pay so brokerage
client OF Mr. Win>lo@ had money 70 let, and Mr. w
agreed obtain the money provided Mr.. ~ would give
him half the brokerage Mr. l. finally did not borrow
toe money alleging that his wife would not sign the
hsril IN srf.p
called subsequently at the Office OF Mr. Nones in Nassau
and asked Mr.. y. TO let him sue Lambert IS he could
get the money Mr.. y. expressed belief that l. wss
good tor nothing and It was no use 10 sae for the
$50. Mr.. W. said it should not cost Mr.. y. cent,
and MIR ~ finally consented under condition that he
was not to De responsible tor any Of tho costs.
Mr. " consequently entered suit IN the Common
Pleas against Mr.. Lambert for the SO, obtained
Judgment, with Sit costs, making 500 THIS was not
sufficient enable Mr. W 10 Tile creditors bill IN
Chancery. be entered another action IN the Circuit
Court against Mr. Lambert the iud .ment obtained M
the Common Pleas and got Judgment there with -"
costs making with the original $50 claimed, and the
two suits Sls2 Mr. W now wished Mr. Soues 10 let
him Tile blin Chancery but the latter objected. when
Mr. W reiterated Il should cost Mr. nothing that L.
had been a client of his and he knew where he could
get the money-tt0t II Mr.. u would let him go On lie
would consider favor he would get SlUO or S4CO
cost. OF ambert-tbst he had been Mr.. l. counsel
before 10 day. and by means OF screw bill would get
the money OF him Mr. y consented 10 let his name
be used and creditors bill hIei against Mr. Lam
bert and he brought before Master bu It not APP
psarng that l.. had any property 81 his own Mr. Ncncs
refused ME security Tor and the matter ended
II was also conjend.j Tor defence. that hr W yb
tanned half the interest ia the so for The purpose OF
bringing suit which was Illegal The Court, however
held that he had right 10 the s25 Mr w denied that
lie prosecuted the suit on his own account. Verdict
! this forenoon For plaintiff Mr.. Wirslow in person
I tor defendant Mr.. j. y Taylor
Before Chief Justice Jones' I'm III Smith ~ Jlpses
Rehabilitation Tor assault and battery caused It is
sail by Mr. :. shouting and alarming Mr. RS horse
one OF the avenues. The Jury could no, agree, aud
were discharg sd The Sill be tried again to day
FouarmN s1xrnWAaps CovRr. Dec "a Before Judge
Sterling -!,PoarANr To AUcrIoSFFs5 AND RcAS Es
/ TATE PURCHASERS jacob gaRdrp02l r. "a +. II. Lad
| iOD = C0.Thc defendants the well known Real Is
tate Auctioneers oil this city and this action OF
assumpsit back from the defendant $40. the
amount OF sucticncer lee paid By the plaintiff 10 the
defendant in the purchase four lots OF land time
last October al public sale az the Merchants Exchange
by reason OF the failure 10 furnish good and su!fcient
TILE 10 the property as Was warranted IN the OF
sale Il in evidence that the ute 10 the property
unsatisfactory and that the defendant learning
from the plaintiff council that such the case
promptly repald the ten per ceGt purchase money that
had the time OF the sale been advanced by the plain
iii. and which defendant held ia trust uI. the title
should BE- examined but refused 10 repay the auconeers
fees denying the right OF the plaintiff 20 the
same and contrasting the suit That in they
compelled 10 refund to plaintiff they mi ht have
OF action for the against the seller of the property
The Court held that in sales OF ths kind the purchaser
did not employ the auconeerihAt the consideration
for the sale the payment OF the purchaser bid and
specific agreed upon to tue auctioneers tor the
latter sum they making bill and giving receipt in
their name the purchaser thus making AZ II were
for payment OF money in two different di
rectons in the purchase the property aud the auction
GERS and the should both be treated pdncl.
pals and each separately accountable 10 the purchaser
for the amount Of money By each received in case OF
failure OF consideration And the Court gave judgment
for the plaintiff for $40 and costs OF sutMr MULCH
! for plaintiff Mr. Cochran for defendants.