New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-11-19
LAW COURTS.
COURT CALENDAR-This Day-Cmcuit sCourt.
Nos. s33, l,Ol7, 1920, l2l, 1922 l,os4, 1894,
l9s 428, 1925, 673 996 l,02l, ,026 to 1000.

SUPREME COURT Special Term B efore Chief
Justice Edmonds.-D e ci sions.-EltaS Noe vs.
Elizabeth Noe,-Divorce, on charge OF nidelity,
TS6fos j. Tobias VS.. RoJen Rogers-Where
two persons are jointly bound as bail for another
the liability OF each to the other to contribute IN
equal shares for what has been claimed on the IN.
dertaking is provable under the bankrupt law and
barredby the discharge.
The rule to give color in pleadngs is the same
under the code that it formerly was.
Demurrer oyerruIed as to its first and second
causes, and allowed as to its third.
James l.. Phelps VS.. Coles d Wdftney0ad others.
Where a Receiver appointed under an order OF
the Court commences suit IN respect to the pro-
perty put in his charge, without permission OF the
Court he will be personally liable for the costs in
case he fails in his suit. He can avoid such per-
sonal liability only by first obtaining from the
Court leave TO prosecute Motion for costs granted.
AE,rr S. MgerS vs. James Gemmel-A landlord
who owns premises adjoining those he has let to
his tenant, has no right to make erectlons thereon
whereby the enjoyment OF the demlsed premises
may be disturbed, as by erecting high wall on
the adjoining lot to deprive his tenant OF light or
air and his doing il it operate so far to disturb
the enjoyment as to dissolve the tenancy may be
restrained by injunction. Motion to dissolve IN
junction denied
Henry and r. Walker VS.. E9pard Watker.-
Motion for Receiver denied.
~
man-When ON q complaint to enforce an eqult.
able demand, it appears that 1t is stale demand
which would not be enforced IN equity and also
that it is barred by the statute Of limitations, such
defense may be taken advantage OF by demurrer.
Demurrer to complaint allowed.
W. b Ldarrence .Jr VS.. Rhefd LeF0S, assignee.
Motion to refer denied
J. Wilson Green VS., SAINT PHs-Motion to
change place of trial granted
BGrbe7. &, Boone VS.. James j. Hu66ard-On
motion to discharge an order OF arrest 1t is COM
petent under the code to read athdaNts denying
the allegations in the affidavit on which this order
was granted, and on such denial being explicitly
made as to matters material to the arrest, the Or
der viii be vacated.
In cases where defendant is arrested on the
ground OF fraud, 1t is not improper to aver the
fraud in the complaint, to the end that an issue
may be framed upon 1t, and on proper finding by
the Jury the defendant be liable to Imprisonment
ON the execution.
Motion to vacate order of arrest granted.
CIRCUIT CoURr-B efore Judge Edwards
Burger .aad Lecour VS. Columbia Fire ms. of
philadelphia verdict for plaintiffs in this
case was taken by consent subject TO the opinion
OF the Court.
EI,-o c. Lee vs.. Hm. II. Dcgroot-To recover
the value Of Piano. I orte, hired by plaintiff to
MIR. Charles Holt, and left by latter, subsequently,,
IN Aug, l04S, with Mr.. De Groot as security for
SSV, rent que OS Mr. ii. 10 MT. De " OF store g
Fulton St, Mr.. H. having removed from the store,
owing the rent, at the latter time. Mr.. Holt was
engaged IN the music business and hiring and let
ting out piano,tortes. He paid Miss l.. So
month for the piano forte and had been in the
habit OF letting it out for s3i month
The question was whether regular demand
had been made on behalf OF Miss L. to Mr. De
Groot for return of the piano forte, and whether
he had refused TO give it up.
On Mr. II. moving from the store, it appeared
Mr. DeGroot asked him to toleave him the Piano
forte as security to which he assented Did not
hear anything more OF it for some months
The Jury thought there had been demand on
Mr. DETROIT, and refusal. Verdict for plaintiff,
$50, being value. For pill Mr.. Wilson Green
for delft Messrs Barnard and Parsons
Franeis Skiilman Tie Tennessee Murine
and FIR Insurance Company Edward Wilson
effected insurance on three frame houses in Til
larry st near Gold Brooklyn, which were nearly
DESTROYED by tire in May, Is45. At the time Of
insurinig he assigned, by consent, the policies to
Mr. S in security for a mortgage. The property
was leasehold Mr.. " subsequently sold his
night aud title to Mr. Stryker, which was contend.
ed for defense to have been without the assent of