New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-05-23
NETWORK DAILY TRIBUNE, MAY 90.


Isdvised him to send il back Thompson was
very web, n ent; he said Bennett bad used one OF
Foster letters 10 make the note, bat Il was baby
dore Witness underwent a searching cross-ex
animation IN which be averred on second thought
that be believed the filing up Of the note vas in
Thmpson's hand writing Bennett he said, hal
told linn that Thompson showed 10 him ESQ coun-
terf,it bill altered from 81, on the Trades n ans
Bank He said that Thompson told him they were
getting ~ "A large amount TO be passed along the
banks Of the Mississippi There was a unfiendiy
feeling betwet u Tbon pson and Bennett, growing
out OF Thompsons failing 10 pay his rent. Al tbs
stsge Ct proceedings the Court Adjourned lor the
day.
Court or CoNxoN PLE,s-Beore Judge n
graham.-Mchosi DgGy vs John j. Y. IVes,errai.
The LherifL under All attachment against Daniel
Duffy in Sept. ls4s, as a concealed or absco1ding
debtor, levied upoa about 500 worth Of cookery
ware at No rs Eighth av. the suit being IN favor
Of Jtc, b s. Platt against Mr. for $500. TDe
pla niif who is brother to the wife OF Daniel ID }
claimed 10 Rave owned the stock under n mortga e
to him from Daniel in ia y, Is ~, and brings aC!I1n
to recover the value.
For defenteit was contenied that the MORTGAGE
had Lot been given for value, but TO hinder ani do.
lay creditors. 1t was shown that Mrs. ID. wiie Of
Daniel continued 10 keep the store, as she had 1r
meily done, although they removed iron % 10 10y
Ninth avenue, thence 10 Eighth avenue. Mrs d.
we believe, obtained Judgment in her favor, some
time Stree for crockery taken debt OF her hG5-
band, which, under the statute permitting married
women to conduct business. he had purchased o.
her own account] The jury considered that the
mortgage was NOT bona hJe, and gave verdict Tor
defendant For plaintiff Messrs. John Graham I'd
II. ID. Holmes. Fox defendant Messrs. Blunt aud
Brown d Matihe ws.
Before Judge WoojruF- kolJrook, Garter j. C0.
vs.. Nh This case is ,ti on.
4 Tl,f~~ hi
VS. James Jones On n motion to vGcate order to
hold 10 bail on ALLEGED Misrepresentation at time OF
purchasing, &c-Thc question was whether the
Court had power to admit counter a'ldavlts TO re-
but the lidayit OF tfaUd. IL decided that IN q
case. such as contract, where arrest cannot b.
made on the merits, but on something collateral,
which brings il under arrest such rs an allegation
of fraud in making the contract, counter atdavits
may be pre- euted but the fraud, but not u AZ
feet he merits. On this decision counter ahIay4t5
were presented, and the case argued yesterday,
Mr. Tsggard for plaintiff, and Nj Stoughton Tor de-
fendant D, cision reserved.
THE following is the opinion as TO alfdavits
" pOn n motion 10 vacate an order OF CO1rt, the
defendant may couDteract by aiidayits, the ground
upon y hich the order was granted II they do not
involve the merits OF the action bat where the
csuse OF action furnishes of itself su fcient ground
for arres,ng the defe ndant, he will not be allowed
10 tut 10 counter alhdavits deny ing the cause OF
action The cases under the first part OF subdiT-
siCus and ) OF sec. l79, IN cases n which the
ground Of arresting defendant are distinct and
separate from The cause OF action
SUTRFME COURT- General Term -Non-cnnne.
rated motions will not be heard til the fourth Mon
day Of June, when special meeting Of the Court
viii he held for the purpose.
JVPO,kr and Il A. SABINE VS. ) Termly5d anil
T. $. C6rist pltrS-Order stricken out as false,
SHIN ard frivolous, aud judgment Tor plaintiffs as
for want of an answer
s. Jaderrood vs. q. HNs-Fiye per cent. a.
lowed in addition to taxable costs.
CIRCUIT CoURr-Before Judge Marvin Nm
A. Vtybl0h k Va. Isaac y Edcards-Rcp lovn as
to gcoos tai en- for wharfage Of manure slOop Fen
wick, already referred to. The Jury could not agree
and were discharged -For plaintiff, Messs Liv-
inestor, Cutler and Van Antwerp; for defendant,
Mr.. HastiDgs-The Court then Adjourned for the
tim.
SUPERIOR COURT-Special Term-Befcre Judge
Sanford ID els ons.-gK r. Taylor VS.. t.
Kobg Jr. CT Gk-The note ia question belongs to
Mrs Ktlby as her separate property, to which she
is equsby entitled. Plaintiff is not entitled to it,
al is forbidden 10 interfere Herewith. No costs
to Mrs. Kelby. Proceedings against Il. Kelby dis
missed without costs.
Etla Ere Insurance. Go. Samuel DrVry-
Motion TO dismiss complaint 9ranted unles8 plain.
tits within five days file security for costs.