New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-07-23
LAW COURTS.

ErPRFME CoURT.-ln Chambers-beIore jugs
Edwards--I i0bedS COrpus.-A writ was issued
sued out by Antoine Francis Rosa, recurring U"G
viopi Corr Of 500 Broadway, and Catherine rosa
10 produce the person of Rostlie Rosa, little ga
81 yssrs of age, daughter Of said complainant ana
Catbenpe it being alleged that the said child Is re-
strained Of her liberty by the said Catherine ana
Ottavioni Gori. The complaint aneges tna' salu
Catherine s his wife, that she LETT him. taking her
child with herl without any cause In September,
1917. and be did not know where she was I'LL May
LAT when he s1certained she was living at the
house Of laid OttavioDi-that hewent there and de-
nanded his child but that the said Ottavioni reius
ed give her up, saying he would not 40 so unless
compelled by law. The respective parties withthe
child, appeared yesterday The nearing OIL 'ne case
S,tif for Damages-Mr. r has entered an ac-
ton of Grim. Con. against MIR. q. damages lald az
$4,000. In his complaint, Mr. H. states tnat ne
was married to said Catherine about years ago az
Base. in Switzerland and started, not long after.
ward for the United States, 'lngag letter oil
introduction TO the said Ottavioni Gori, with whom
he was afterwards on intimate terms-that the said
Catherine left him in ls47. he not knowing, as al
ready stated, where she had gone-that be under
stood she had expressed an intention oil going 70
Europe and that the said complainant in conse'
ouence proceeded himEelf 10 France, visiting the
native place Of Catherine, but without effect, and II
was not till May last, he understood she was resi-
ding nt the house Of the said Ottavlonl. We IN
Montreal, in ls47, the time alleged that Madame
II. let taking her child with her &c. Mr. g. was
held 10 bail in the sum Of SO 600. He denies We
understand, with having acted with improperly.
MARlsE CoURT-Before tpdge COxles-Iem'
ME Fyv and West W. WILSON vs.. Christian ).
Storms--Paintiis are brokers' In w st., and the
defendant sadler. The present Is an acton on
one Of the several notes, the defence to which was
usury. Temple Fay, one Of the plaintiffs was
called as witness by defendant. He stated that
the firm were in the habit OF lending Alr. D. money
from time to time, and taking notes-thsthe would
sometmes make a payment, and at others the old
notes would be renewed, but that there was no
agreement for an usurous rate of interest and that
seven per cent was all that bad been received OF
agreed to be received. Two witnesses testlted 70
having overheard cOnvers atoms between Messrs'
Fay and Storm at the store of the latter, IN which
Mr.. Il. said he woad let Mr. 8. have as mucn money
- be wanted, and charge so cents day INTEREST
per Sl00. They did not profess, however, 10 nave
! overheard all the conversation.
40 The Court held that the defense had not oeen
tained---that confessions casually overheard hnou1o
be received with great caution, besides ~nion vi.
conversations were not shown particularly W ne
had reference 10 this note. Judgment ior p,eli,s
sloo. For plaintiffs, MIR. Beebei for de'ena"n'
Mr. Rapeo. ~ II
Alec Philips Va. Patrick Speeny and Geo ~
Woiker Plaintiff was a builder and contrsctor U
q Baptst Church in Second avenue. He made
writteni sub contract with g. and w. who AZ
masons, 10 complete the setting and mason wo'
within Is days from cath May last. s. undertook
sbe Job, but after short time abandoned It, Nd
p. brings the present action tor damages anedgln
that, in consequence, he has been kept our
$1,000, which be would otherwise have received
that the price Of wages has increased since tn,
time, and that it will cost him oonsidsFaol
amount extra TO complete the job. For defense
was said, that the materials were not ready, WINE
was denied The Court considered that s. q
failed to complete their contract without just csus
Judgment for plaintiff, $40 and costs. For pl'
Mr.. McMahon f; for delft. MIR. Paulding.
John n. II. Perkins vs. William Adams-L
recover six months rent Of part OF store IN Ceds
a. Il being alleged that Mr. A. hired after his yet
was mp, for another year, but he only remained 81
months, and owes the balance. For defense 1t wi
said that Mr.. p refused to let for more than thr'
months ut a time with a view to alterations, al
erection in part of the premises being altered
The Court considered the defense sustained. JGd
ment for defendant.