The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-12-19
Superior Court.

Dec. 1s.-Israel Bsuers Us. The Mayor, &c Of Neg
Ymk-Thswasa action to recover 8 month and days
salsry. 1t appeared, that the plaintiff appointed
policeman, and received his warrant the 3lst Of
May. 1s47 On the Goth Of July following complaint
was lodg ed again.t him with the Mayor and he was
noticed 10 answer on the 27th. He attended on the
9th; but in consequence of the absence Of witness
the charge was not gone int and the case was adjourn
ed to the S0tb. On the 2Sth. the Mayer dismissed
bin or sent An order to the captain of the district to
that effect. The plaintiff through his counsel
tended that the Mayor had power to dismiss him
until the complaint was investigated and proved. He
continued there fore to tender his services up to the
5th January last and now seeks to recover his ray nr
rected the jury to find for the plaintiff the claimed
which was 1923 81. Verdict accordingly
Before Judge Sanford.
.alsner Jones u.s. G. T. Greene This was an action
for alleged deceit. The plaintiff in September ls47,
purchased from defendant q quantity Of clothing,
amounting to 81 600, at wholesale price. They were
selected by MIR King the plaintiff, aud put up in
boxes after which they were paid for and sent to
Kings store, In Cedar street In fortnight after
wards, the boxes opened the contents examined,
and plaintiff alleges they turned out to be a medley
Of old fashioned, i'll made clothing very much damaged
After the plaintiff had closed his evidence, n nonsuit
ives asked for and granted the ground that the
ton should have been in the name Of King the legal
title of tho goods being in him. The court then ad
journed.
Savage L Bishop as. Thomas j. Hagan--Ths was
action for SANDER 1t appeared that both parties
reside the Third avenue where the plaintiff keeps
grocery store the defe ndants nephew sent
errand to the store, and it that some difficulty
happened 6etwee him and the plaintiff and the plain
TINS brother the boy vent home and complained to
his uncle the defendant down to the store and
challenged the defendant TO fight, and called him
thief sc. The defence that the words we're spo-
ken in rassiop, and had reference ou'y to what
passed between the boy nd defendant and brother
The jury found a verdict for plaintiff for $50
George ~ King ct a. Us .4bel Foster ct al This
was acton for work and labor. and for materials
furnished. The plant fs are ship builders and were
employee by the Defendants to make repairs and put
up mast in the sch ooner Fl. Nickerson. owned by
dtfendants The work was performed. but 1t q, ems
defen dants alege AL deft the defendants set
an agrrpme Mt entered into BY the pisintf that in
the mast turned out to be bad they would put
smother, which was denied by plaintiffs. The jury
f und verdict for plaintiffs for the amount claimed
ss7.
SPECIAL TERM.
Before Judy Sanford
DEC Is -Wuiom Prince Nicholas Hdieh
Rec,iptr, dc.-The NtD Code.-This a motion
founded on affidavit and other papers for order
TO compel the production OF the books, papers. and
voucbt Ct the late njamin w Strong decaaped in
the hands Of the receiver the purpose Of showing
that The bond and ro,e upon which this suit
iroseht were accommodation paperr and that no con-
sd-ratioo given for them and alleging that that
uld appear by Inspection OF the books &c OF the
deceased CouLsei for the receiver opposed the mo-
ton (w,thopt den ying the ale cations In the s fsvi,
The ground that the proceed Dgs irregular, and
thould be by petition uoder the 10th rule OF the Su
rerior Court Coup'e for the paintiG contenjed that
this rule atrogoted by the code AMI that the 3t3d
section Of the code 10 which provides that
action to obtain discovery under OATH In aid of the
persecution Of another action, nor examination
Of party be had behalf of adverse party, ex-
cept In the manner directed by the code he also
that the 3.2d elton OF the code was not
Intended to govern the 3i3d section and that under
this section party could be compelled motion.
Go everything which they could be compelled to do by
bill Of difcovery In court OF equity that the powers
OF the court Of chapcery extended TO compelling the
production for exam nation. Of books and papers In
all cases especially in like the present where
the party was dead and NO remained Of purginx
his conscitnce the books and papers In the receivers
hands being in fact all the conscience left He also
contended that the pawer given by the 342d section
was wide enough to allow the court to have full justice
done In this ca The Judge said that under the code
be bad no power to compel the Of the books
that as to the papers and vouchers he would not
pei their production unless the party stated paricu
lsrly what they were he also inclined to think
the proceeding should be by petition and that as
wasa new proceeding under the code he would ALLOW
the party to withdraw HE papers without costs, and
without prejudice, to renew his motion.