The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1847-05-26


Messrs Brockett and Ptkn her counsel stated that
nterlocutory decree had been obtained, whereby
port il the allegations and charges in the bill Were sub
stsntated The MASTER in obedience to said decree,
he taken suen testimony and made his report whereby
bill were fully proved. The report and accompanying
proofs were then put in and read after which, the Chan
celor TOOK the papers for further confederation The
parties nave been married for upwards Of twenty
years They reside at New Rochelle and move in the
pest society In that neighborhood.
4" the Matter Of Isaac T. Fowier, supposed Luna
tiein this matter, Mr. Alanson Nash presented petit
cy against the said Isaac T. Fowler his father The ne.
titioner by his petition set forth the said Isaac T.
Fowler formerly u resident of CORTLAND Township
Westchester county, and possessed a farm of about
seventycght acres on which he resided and
Legacy Of 800 left him by the grandfahsr Of psti
toner The petitioner further forth that the
posed unatc about forty six years Of age That in
the year 1912. he attended the lectures Of Father
Miller, and ultimately became a convert to his
doctrines and OF his most active disciples. That
years has been itinerant preacher of Millersm
through all parts Of the United States That Isl3 he
declared himself prophet only second to Father Miller
and forbid his family from planting or gathering crops
in any to the farm declaring that 1t WAS
no USE US the world was on the eve OF dissolution In
farming utensils for $4,000 and assigned the legacy Of
ST. for $780, after which he left for the State Of Ohio
and when last heard from was at, or near Cincinnati
preaching the doctrines Of Miller. The petitioner
further stated that his fathers family consisted of a
wife children two and two daughters and
concluded by praying that a commission Of lunacy
might issue to enquire into the alleged insanity Of
the supposed lunatc, and when such insanity com
the Chancellor directed that the commission
in Westchester county, in the village Of Sing Sing,
ed and directed eminent lawyers of that county,
who with the physician of the State Prison at Sing Sing
A'' ~ ''''N VIZ Before idrs' the Vice Chancellor
Franklin C. Field u.s. Charles a. Wiuiamson and
b. he that in
Der, lS45, an interlocutory decree was obtained in
cause in which the said Charles A. Williamson and
others plaintiffs and the heirs and Of
Moses Field defendants The decree directed the
payment by defendants of $4,000 and the conveyance
Of certain real estate Of equal amount The decree be-
ing against minors, contained the usual clause giving
them day to show cause after they came OF age The
In said cause of Williamson the heirs &c. of Moses
Field hath lately obtained his full and fled the pre-
sent bill alleging error in the decree, and praying its
Mr. DUDLEY FIELD moved that the bill be dismissed
on the following grounds First that bill of review
does not lie to interOcutory decree second, that
bill Of review be filed without the primary leave
Of the court third that the decree had per-
formed and security given for its performance and
from the whole decree.
for complainant insisted that the rule forbiddine the
fling of bill Of review without leave of the court ap
Piled to adult defendants only and not to infants who
have in all cases an absolute right to show cause
coming Of ageand that II had applied to infants
the leave was given to show by the decree ITSELF
within six months after coming Of age That the
decree to all ntents and purposes except in the
matter of costs, final decree That the appeal to
ing to the adavit upon which the motion was founded
did not stay proceedings under the decree which
queny retained its vitality in this court The appeal
could not therefore, abridge the right given by the
decree itself to infant to show against it, which
he had right to do without executing the decree,
giving security and that bill Of review the proper
form to set forth the reasons why it should not be
enforced.
Court here intimated that the appeal superseded
Mr. JAY as guardian adtem for the infant defendants
in the cause in which the decree pronounced asked
the advice Of the Court in what form they should on
coming of age show against it. fthe bill of review
was not the proper motion for attachment
against them was pending for refusing to obey tho
(which they not bound to obey into
show cause against it,
Mr. FIELD rejoined and insisted that no bill of review
could be filed by minor, against an interocutory de-
He also commended they stopped by ap-
peal the proper course beore they had brought their
appeal) motion by petition to rehear the cause,
and correct the errors W any the face Of the decree
The VICE CHANCELLOR said as it was somewhat offs
decision.
New York CoURr CoMMoN Pleas, May 4. 1877
IMPORTANT LEGAL DEcIsIoN.-Moses G. Leonard, Com
missioner of the Aims House IS. limos Robbins.
This suit brought ut the instance Of the New
York Sportsmen's Club by the Commissioner Of the
Aims House, to the Of county of N York.
several penalties the violation Of the Game Laws.
Nessrs Porter and McMahon appeared as counsel for
and uSss and Levy for
pn a and his
to under passed 9th May, 1887 en-
titled An act to amend title l6 chapter 90 of the st
and 9th parts Of the entitled act for
the Of deer and certain game and animals
and the act extending the same passed l4th March,
learned counsel being the upon which this action
was founded and affects the community at large
here insert it at length Every who shall expose
for sale partridge quail in either Of the said
ties-New York, Kings, Queens Westchester, Orange,
Putnam Roekland, Erie Greene, Monroe, Albany Rens-
saaer &c. respectively, shall purchase procure,
n a
said countless during the time prohibited by law, shall
be deemed guilty of killing the same, and liable to the
woodcock between the LIST day Of February and the LIST
day of July in year partridge or quail between the
9Th day Of January and the 25th day Of October any
year.
The further stated the facts Of the
as follows: The defendant, Mr. Robbins, had been for
years past open volator of the game laws and that
the 23d Of October lS46 he discovered having
In his possession from 60 to 70 partrdges and SOME II
Ia quas openly exposed for Of to the
public in Fulton market. Information Immediately
given to the commissioner Of the Aims Hsuse Depart
ment who, having thoroughly examined the question,
concluded that it proper for enforcing the
law and accordingly commenced this suit To support
his opening Mr. Mcmahon called three highly respeca-
BILE gentlemen upon whose evidence it appeared that on
the 23d October 1885, the said witnesses Fulton
market and observed near his stand box and basket
belonging to him. each Of which filed with game;
they counted 20 cartridges in the basket and 81 in the
box and there still appeared in each many Of that
description Of Besides this of the witnesses
testified that Robbins took him aside behind poultry
stand and opened drawer he had therein and showed
him quails and SEINE 10 or II cartridges.
On the cross examination, Mr.. Bryan endeavored to
elicit from the witnesses that they had entapped poor
Robbins, Ito use the counsels own phrase in this diff
hculty and that this suit for the benefit
Of the club; but upon objection taken by Mr.. McMa-
hon. most of these enquiries ruled OUT and all the
witnesses could state upon this point that they
went to Fulton market with the bona de intention Of
seeing II any game was exposed for SALE and what
previously stated Upon this evidence Mr. McMahon
rested the plaintiffs
The defence then opened by Mr.. Bryan, who in
genousy endeavored to stgmatise all laws relative to
the Of game savorng of oppression and
illustrated his by reference to the game laws
instituted by the Conqueror SC He also stated that
the birds in question killed in Connecticut and
that he should insist matter Of constitutional law,
that the act under which this suit brought
constitutional and void. Mr. Bryan then introduced
witness to prove that the birds killed in the State
of Connecticut and brought by him to MIR. Robbins
therefore the law did not apply to him.