New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-12-01
Law Courts.


Counr or APPx AIs-This Court owing 10 the In.
Jury received BY Board Of Adermens room by Ere.
o. sss but slightly jur,d though consid.rsbr vet by
ws,cr) held their sesson yesterday IN the Board Of
Assisient ActIncns room.
suPERroA CouRr-Bsiore Chef Justice Oakley and
ia 49, V~nd, ryoel and Ssnoicrd ID lsiORs.-Sa.
raj " Graham sretr &C. We. Fred,riok ~ Schaaidi ta
rleaded &c Asiion Tor sttornsys b.ll OF the late
Chez Gfsham Eiq Defence, the statute Of Limitations
aud other matters Of no particular point The Court
decloed ihs' under general replication 10 plcs Of
ttsiute OF limsiions The plaintiff msht prove the %
ce ~ deftndsDt from the Sste ser the q
ton - 20 bring the period during which be
within the state 10 within Elk yoars Molten for new
tral dsrird.
H,nr, Baylans vs. TIE Mayor. sc Of Nec York Suit
by Nh for INJURIES received BY The hrns OF cannon
IN ths Park a tie public meeting csto b The Mayor
under The resolution Of the Common Council 10 take
roeasur,s relative 10 proceedings IN hexco IN May
lefo Mr. h. who Ia schsnic. was returning home
the Park hut With al observing The guns which
were pscso the N. w. corner ci the Park without
the oTc,rs knowledge oi tho tuihores. passed Ia
front Of one just as u VISA discharged He wes Knocked
doeu End badly injured and ole Of he eyes put out
lie wss laid up for long ioe To some OF the counts
Of TIE declaration defendant cemurrsd. Ice cause
tried issue Joined chsrgog the injury directly the
CITY autbOrtes On the tisl plant falling 10 prove
fny connection batgeco The firing 81 the suH and the
Msyor sud Common Council or City tuih rides, The
Jldge nonfOitfd The pls1nf 1no Court held that tne
Dsusui, Sss sht sn1 gave judgment for defendant on
dewursr-ihst the Cry not liable ior The unsG'
thor zcc sci Of iocvl-uas public occasions sny more
then fulisr occasions any Time ~iiin the Wy huis
Eyt0t " Barnum e al IS RusseA Csaes-Sut on
guaranty seal The confederation expressed ore
collar The defendant offered 10 prove tbat The collsr
paid aud infested that u der toe revised st'ues
. panty could show there was 10 Confederation 10
guaranty under seal and there being Confederation
Tor guaranty here II void. The Court held thai the
Of dollar eJpressed sufficient to
uphold the guarsnty-ihst If not paid when executed
tn gusrsnior could for End recover u which fur
Dheo suf lent consideration 10 supper, his covenant
New trial denied
o.. c..,,so, T;oe,IY - NH IN q note
given % oitor compromise Alter All the cred
bad sr.eo 10 compronse II 80 cent this note
given for half the sum. which ihe paJee pro
tsfo b. have thrown on Without the kncweogs q ihe
Other creditors Plaintiff prefer 20 hod the note -
purchaser In good faith for value. The Court held The
20 be void 90 fraud upon the other creditors bur
doubtful whether plaintiff purchssed for val
ue directed Trial to aEcer,ain the fact New ifis
,rsutec
James G. Bum oad Geo Cook impleadsd &c -Demur
rsr 70 declsrsDn tuit sgsint en0Orsef for note
bscsus. plsuu sisted the 10 30 made by persons
using the Of hrm partnership without stating
their 81 length. TIE Court held the declaration
sufficient 10 an actcn sgainst an endorser Demurrer
oyeIruled.
CIRCUIT Cousr- Before Judge EdmoDds.- Ctorlss
Burial hnGrtp Lddue LHeius r. Beards'ey and A,z
anau Chalmeys Action on note 10 which pies 81
u.ury UP 10 bar Of payment but which dld not
succeed Verde, tor plsinth-FOr plaintiff Mr.. Kim
ball for defendants Mr. Aiken and MIR EllingwoOd.
Couar or COMMON PLRAs-Belore Judge DAILY So
rhta CshCr John HQitTTdH SUIT 10 recover Tor
BOARD Of dsienosnts wife, daughter " psnh on the
ground that Mr. II abandoned bic wife in 1913 aud her
rnotber has been obliged since b msntain her
The defence 10 that Mrs H. bad been guilty OF inhdeiy
win q yoUng Spsnisrd Dsmed ONE sTs and that abe
broke up during bis absence 10 Pbilsde
PHI. en6 IN tact abandoned him hs having endeavored
10 vein fDo her
The Gaze va. tried once before when a verdict was
given for plsniia but new trial allowed Mr. and Mrs
II w,re married 10 Philadelphia, and subsequently, came
10 Nsw York He Is seme years older Than his lad -
a.. ftrH
OMesrs sno his isiher boarded, together with mum
OF persons the house being highly rospects
bic Mr. alleges that being we'll bis vile Induced
him 60 70 Philadelphia OF ara being exceedingly
sciiv. ir 10 assist hin of that week after the
depsrure ot Mr.. tor Philadelphia, his wife broke up
housekeeping ana went /, live with her mother ~ Va
rckst O'Mesra teiug constant visi,er uDt within
week OF his leaving the cOuntfy that on Mr. III return
ipg he unable TO find tina residence Of hs wife and
saw her broncr inlaw day 10 the street who would
give him satisfaction. Mr.. ii. II appears CLERK Ia
morcsniile house, having salary Of 81 900 per
He has ooDe nothing for the support OF bis wife
since lsi3 alleging reason the cause already stated
On the oth-r h.nd IL was said Mrs. sent u Inform
MIN where she resided
Eoihng appeared from the evidence. 20 support the
cnsrs- Of uhdeliiv except the visits OF q Mesra 10 The
room of Mr.. II (which had sofa Oeostesd m and Yves
occupied both a bedroom snd Suing room and also
bis vlsiung her after she went 20 her mothers but
young girl who was continually with Mrs ii In Nrsey
II End slept IN the with her when Mr.. ii wss
away testified that she never saw anything improper
between Mrs III. and Mr. ON and 1t Vac also stated
that when he visited Mrs. II. IN vsrcksI her mother
ia the habit OF being present Proceeding 10 rels
ton 20 Tho matter 10 divorce 10 now pending, We be-
lleve IN the Court Of ChsnceTy
The Court charged that msn is obliged by law, 70
support his wife according 10 his condition In hfo
II h. elects to DO refuses 10 support her On
sbandODs aud her from bis door be sends her away
with credit ard becomes liable 10 sny person, parcu
larry II not acquainted with the circumstances, who
may furnish her with necesssries for her support On
the other hand II wife. without the cons ut OF her
husband. voluntarily, aud Of her own will ebandons her
husband and lives elsewhere he IL not bound 10 suppor
her. lie must furnish proper maintenance for her ~
his home but he 10 obliged 10 maintain her else
where.
Again. II tho wife is guilty of rhdolity he is at lib
eriy 10 abandon her and abe have claim upon
him Ia law. for support. TIE Court reviewed the ev
dence and stated bsi had never come before II
having 90 little foundation which TO ground charge
OF uhdeiity this Verdict this iorenoon-FOr plain
uff mr Ward and Mr. Porter for defendant Mr.. Cris
4 OConn6 REsk Action 10 recover tho value OF
gold watch and chain said have been loaned TO plain
III several years ego already referred to- Verdict for
plsntin, 800 9s.