New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-01-25
LAW Courts.

SUPERIOR CorRr-Bciore Chief Justice Jones, and
Judges Oakley and Nsnderpoel-D c IONS -
Ealph Lockwood vs. Ja Brolca-Mr L. sued 10 recover
very considerable as counsel fees. II appeared
that be had been employed BY The Attorney OF defendant
and not by defendant herself lie Claimed tile 70 me
fee LIST from having received retander although with
out the knowledge Of the client aud second that an
inherent nigh; OF attorney, receiving reainder'
employ counsel The Court on the trial did not con.
slider the claim OF plaintiff well grounded and ordered
snonsuit Motion IS made to sci Il aside
The Court considers that the nonsgt was correct on
those grounds attorney has 10 right merely from
the circumstance of receiving retainer, 10 employ
such counsel as ne pleases 10 that respect he mus.
consult and be governed by the wishes OF the client
There allegation. however that the attorney was
the general agent for the defendant II 60 he was
clothed with authority 10 employ counsel and the non
sui, will be set aside the ground that the Jury may
psss upon the question whether he was such general
agent or not
THE Judge who tried the case stated that the cues:
ton was not raised a. the trial but the testimony oil
one Of the witnesses Mr.. Barber tends 10 that point
The question is whether the powers Of the attorney ex
tended beyond the trial. and the attorney transacted al
Miss Browns business Considering her alleged pur-
suit At the time this idea made considerable merrinent
In Court
Reuben w. Torau vs.. Geo. ". NiIes.-This was an
action Of trespsss against attorney to make MIN re-
sponshe tor levy by sheriff. against the goods OF
psinua under execution against third party on the
ground of improper Interference on ms part Al the
mad verdict given in his favor and inoton suose-
quenty made 10 set IL aside The Court IN Us decision
held that the attorney saying the deputy shera 10 go
10 certain store in Msiden lane and person would
point out him the goods spd also going TO TIE store
himself afterwsrd was not an improper interference.
There Is general allegation, however that the verdict
was against evidence and there doubt from the tesu-
mony whether or Mr.. N. did not 90 beyond the line
of his duty and render himself responsible. New tia
allowed on payment OF costs.
Henry PErey C0rHcN q als-ln this case new sui
allowed II is alleged however that the testimony
showed the officer who was defendant IN the suit TO
have taken goods belonging TO plaintiff Nonsuf sei
aside and new trial allowed on payment OF costs
Gorge WATSON Um. Jones. ShuiJ.-The Court con-
sders that the sheriff erred in paying the tnrd party
claim instead Of tina, OF plainrt. kons0it set aside
and new tina granted.
CorHr OF COMMON PLEAs-De CT 81 ons.-i. Deal
son and o;hcrs john froasa JRelafve 10 sale OF
steamboat boilers. Verdict for plaintiff confirmed
zier. r. Sierdrf aud Others vs. Hrrrey a. wed q a.
Action against the drawer and the accepuon OF BIZ OF
exchange. Report OF referees IN favor OF pAnu1 con
hrTned.
There were also one or two decisions on appeals from
Chambers.
L. s DISTRICT CovKr-Before Judge Belts Water
Emmanuel, sesman OF the packet snip swiizeriAna'
tried q charge of endesvoring 10 make revolt
The Jury found him not guilty we understand I'm,
manuel sued the Captain in civil sat fer assault and
battery and the Captain. the other hand brought me
present complaint TO this Court Neither OF them were
successful
MAINE CorRT-NAfg ys. EesTon-Io recover OF
the Captain OF Swedish ship 0oh for - days services
as wsichman Verdict for psinte 81 the rate Of oHs
rane per day, with costs.