The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-07-21
Law intelligence.

SUPREME CovRr--SPEciaL TENN July 20 Before
Judge Hnrlbut In the matter Of opening Flatbu>h
Avenue, Brooklyn, motion was a. out IN be made
this morning TO confirm the commissioners report ia
this matter. when MIR. Justice Hurlsut stopped thu
counsel and said that IN consequence of the refusal
81 ree If the Judges Of the outside districts to hold
a Term here, the business of This district anguish
ING ano ne lor one sou,d not Sand ne wou'u urge ~
On biz brethren To do hkewe) neglect the business OF
IL cir district for the street business of Brooklyn
II wss lime that the public should know the Delinquent
ees OF the judges Of the other districts, and how the
thrty-i sinecures in this State are to be fl led by
the fer tlem.D who hold them; he would give the
buir OF the first dis riot preference over all hes
long motion remained to be made or cause re-
nained on the calendar, no other susiness would be
taken up He would even give the chamber bust ne -
Of the first district ference He did not mean to
be understood as refusing absolutely TO take this re-
port up. All he meant to say was, that while there
such q frightfu of business the clen ,r
Of The of The first district it should be att. nded
10 before all other business. His Honor then proceeded
with The regular business
John Barry rs Maria Remsen Er'r. 4c-This was
application to be discharged from purchase. Ger
auci pursuant to decree ofthe Court Of Cbancery;
william Lynch became the purchaser OF lot NJ. 80,
and sought to be discharged from the purcha the
ground that there Yves a Discrepancy between the
des cription Of the premises in the handful
sale, under which he purchased, ana the Masters
de-. in other words that the purchaser of the adj
joining lot was IL have three feet of the alley way,
which, by the terms of sale, belonged tc him. Lynch
On the other side II was alleged, that map Of the
premises was exhibited at the sale which the bOuu
daries Of the two lots accurately described nd
that Lynch saw u, and was fully apprised Of the
an accurate descripson according to the map
The Court held that the purchaser must be dis
charged question then arose to costs. Ii
eont nded the part Of those interested in the fund.-
thst. under the new code, the purchaser not
thed TO costs. The Court held that in all suits
mebced before the code into operation, (lnd
this was one) the purchaser was entitled to costs
Gusts ordered to be paid cut of the fund
COMMON Pleas July 20-Before Judge Ingraham.-
Joseph Hozte u.s. Joseph Bishop, ct al. This
action memorandum check for $500. The check
dated in October last. and drawn by defendants
in favor of Riblet who took it, together with Of
biz for the same amount and deposited them with
the plaintiff as security for $780, advanced by him
loan for few days. The tina for which the loan
made expired, and the plaintiff rcsorted TO the
checks. but payment refused both byl the bank
and he draw For the defence IL nsistt that
the draft should have been presented in due time
that instead Of holding it until the time for pay
ment Of the loan expired, 1t should have been pre-
scented on the day it bore date. Want of consde-
ration was also set up defence. Judgment for
plaintiff for the full amount
Joseph Horie Us George Ribieu.-This an action
for the same amount. brought against Rbett as the
principal The same defence set up, namely. that
the checks not presented ct the proper time
payment. The plaintiff showed that it ut defe a.
dants request they were kept back. Judgment for
plaintiff.