New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-06-26
LAW COURTS.
Monddg's Proceedings.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-General Term
Before Ingraham, first Judge, and Judge w God
ruff-D ecisions.-Mason VS.. Itbbets-Judg-
mentreversed, with costs.
Walsh vs. ZelteT-Same.
MIS- VS.. Hinslosc-Same.
Johnson VS.. Ftzgerdld--Same.
Wertz VS.. Greentcoid-Reverseda as to 3d. affirm
ed as to rest. No costs
Winter vs.. Delaptaine-New trial denied, with
costs.
Peck VS.. Marshall-Judgment affirmed
Duke vs. Janes-Same.
Wheeler vs.. UiHiamS-Same.
De Palma vs. Florio-Same.
Regain vs.. Cr0pley-Same.
adams VS.. kearney-Same.
Rule-There will be no General Term last week
in July. At the Special Term in July arguments
and trials will be heard by of both parties,
but no default will be taken unless by consent or
stipulation or the order Of the Court.
SUPREME CoCRT-Speciai Term The following
are points in decisions already referred to:
Commissioner Of Jurors.-A warrant under
summary proceedings to obtain possession of an
Office will not be granted except where the right
OF the claimant to the Office is not disputed. In
this case some Of the Judges, having the power OF
appointment, have doubted its validity, owing to
the removal and appointment not having been made
by a majority of each of the Judges Of the Superior
Court, Court of Common Pleas and Board of So
peryisors. As to the idea that the Aldermen are
the exotficio judges of Common Pleas, and a ma
jority Of its judges, therefore, present. the law APP
pears to have intended the actual Judges of the
Court. The claimant must be left to his remedyby
quowananto.
Douglas vs. Munroe.-This was an application
for construction Of the will of the late Margaret
Douglas OF whom Mrs. Munroe is daughter One
OF the children Of Mrs. NJ. (grandchild of deceased
has arrived at the age OF 81, and the question Is If
entitled, under the will, to the share OF the grand
children under the will. The Court considers none
of the grandchildren so entitled until the death Of
their parents.
Crawford ads. Cure This was an injunction TO
restrain the eviction Of a tenant by summary pro-
cess. tenant holding at will cannot be proceed
ed against as a tenant from year 10 year, nor is a
summons left at o'clock for tenant TO appearbe
fore Justice 6 miles of at O'Clock aud answer,
giving reasonable time TO appear The Code has
enlarged the powers Of the Court as to Injunction
making it beyond the point where there is irrepa-
rable injury to property.
Seeley VS.. Seelev-The pplicaton for divorce is
denied, because the referee has taken no evidence
as to whether the parties have lived together since
the alleged offence also, because the service OF
notice to defendant was not sufficient. In the ap-
plicatcn for publication It was requested thateave
begiven that letter be directed 10 defendant at
his last place of residence, which was granted. Ii
now appears that his last place of residence was
New. York, and a letter was put into the post Of
gone to Ca ifornia.
State ads. Grl6ing-A report as to damage
which party may recover by reason OF sn lnluhc-
tion having improperly issued, requires coniirma
ton before the undertaking can be prosecuted.
People VS.. Ctr BrookiyH.-The first remedy
against corporation for emitting 70 make return
10 a common law certlorari is by distrangaf, aud
an alias aud purias, in which the Issues may be
increased A writ of sequestraton is not the first
process Writs Of distrangas awarded unless IN
90 days defendant make return.
CARPENTER vs. Van Auden Five separate suit: ior
libel are brought relating 70 the same 'l sHs'
and involving substantially the same defense
There is no reason why the motion TO consohdaIe
them into one should not be granted:
Same vs. SpooHer- Same as ~ six suits ior al
legged libel The place of trial will be changed, on
motion, to Kings Co. There was no motion to lat
| ter effect in the case Of Van Auden.
Pearce vs. Ogden'S Estdte-A party having
full opportunity to attend a taxation Of costs and
omittlng 10 do So cannot afterward on account OF
| alleged improper items, which by attending ne
might have go; struck out, ask for a relaxation
Lockrood VS. Dykers, 3c.-ln suit for an &C,
count it is not in order for the plaintiff to demand
on the hearing before the referee who is trying the
issue debtor and creditor account That can only
be had after a report on the ISSUE and leave grant
| ed after full hearing. -
Moyrison VS. CoTtelyou-An injunction will not
be dissolved until the facts involving the merits are
BorrV vs. Ransom Relative to grounds for the
| new Cemetery to be called the Evergreen. On
reference TO inquire as TO the liability OF one CO.
surety to another it is competent for the surety
sought to be charged to prove that he became such
surety at the request and on promise OF lndemni'
Nv from the other surety and also to prove that such
surety had obtained indemnity in whole or IN Pars
| from the principal.
| UIif;ng VS. Commissioners Of Emigration =
This was a submission, by consent, OF question
under the Code. The Court considers 1t should 90
TO the General Term.
IAN Valen VS.. Russell e. AHen-Attachments
awarded against both defendants for violating IN,
;unction. and defendants being IN contempt couid
not move to dissolve the injunction :.
verified "a required by the Code it cannot be strucS
out as false, however frequent the suspicion Of ne
falsitv NAV be, because the Court cannot Try the
| ;.ac''o- a fdav;t and on special motion.