The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-06-12
Law Intelligence.

The CASE OF KATE MEADOWS AND JOHN PRocroR-
This which occasoned considerable interest at
New Orleans, short time since, is not quite settled
yet. 1t appeared that her registered by the
magistrate who married her to Mr. Proctor Florella
Marshall, but she sues for divorce Kate Meadows
She still insists that 1t well and distinctly under
stood that her future husband be satisfied mere
upon any privileges and immunities whatever and, in
fact and in plain Saxon that the marriage never
to be contaminated. The defendant, says the DELTA
has employed counsel learned in the law to defend
him. They have filed answer on his behalf deny
ing all the plaintiffs allegations. except the fixed
fact" of the marriage, and suggesting that all those
portions of her pleadings relative to 'consHmmation
matrimonial privileges and rights SC, are indece MT
indicate, impertinent totally uncaed for and
should be considered by the court though they had
never been made Defendant specially denies that he
espoused the damsel with any such reservation and
limitation set forth by her He insists that there
was such understanding the subject, and that
he is entitled in law justice and Substantial equity
to "a the honors and inmuuitics exercised enjoyed
possessed and maintained by husbands in general
bridegroons in particular for long time that the
memory of man runneh not to the contrary The fair
plaintiff has filed supplemental petition, praying
for trial by jury 1t is very queer and funny
as 1t stands.
SUPERIOR CouRT.-Beforc Judge Sandford.-John H.
Brownfng and John p Hull Is. Alfred Dalesme.-This
was action Of trcspass the recover DANA
ges for forcibe entry &C. 1t appeared the plaintiffs
and defendant occupied the store No Pine street
the plaintiffs the first floor. baseme mt and sub base
ment cellar and the defendants the second story
except small part in the rear, at foot of the stairs
leading to the second floor, where there erected
stairs to pillar which, with Others sustans the front
wall Of the building Those doors swing towards, and
closed and fastened the inside of the defe
premises The plaintiffs alege that the doors are of
great Importance to persons occupying the store giving
great facility of ngress and cgress into and from the
first story and that the fall which belongs to the store
can only be used by having to it through those
doors 1t appeared that in 1896 the defendant closed
those folding doors by which he prevented all ingress
and egress to and from the cellar and also cut the
rope and afterwards spliced it, and caused the hatch
way to be nailed down. By these operations he de-
prived the plaintiffs of the of the fall to raise and
lower their goods and also of the cellar base
ment The plaintiffs insist that all the occupants of
the store were tenants in common, and had common
right to the of those appurenants and that being
deprived Of the Of them they greatly injured
and Inconvenience in carrying on their business
The defence set plaintiffs were essees Of the
premises and that in 1916 they dered their lease
upon which the defendant took out q new lease re-
serving to himself the exclusive right to the fold
ing doors, hatchway and fall He also attempted to
prove that It the usage amongst merchants that
where doors were fastened on the Inside Of their pre-
misses that they had the right to fasten and keep them
closed when they pleased The judge in charging the
jury said that the lease gave the defendant exclu
sve rghtsthat with regard to the hatchway and fall
the parties have common right and the only ques-
ton they had to consider those points to the
amount OF damages In regard to the folding doors,
his honor said he had doubtc to the rights Of
the parties; upon this question agreed that the
jury should find special verdict. Sealed verdict to.
morrow (this) morning.
JUSg 10.-The jury In this cause brought in sealed
verdict this morning. finding for the plaintiff $175 da-
images for obstruction Of the hatchway halls and sub
cellar and found that there no usage Also found
six cents damages for preventing plaintiff from keep
ing the folding doors open.