New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-05-11
LAW COU K rs.

Cbrv,tIe. which were bid of by them at admins
trator's sale for s3l, 900. Messrs. NJ. refused 70
perfect the Purchase, on the around that the af-
mini.trator could not give title. The present suit
"a TO test the point Messrs. Z. SANFORD and I.
Callaghan appear for the administrator aud Messrs
Cbas O Conor and +. Dewitt. for defendants.
The property was formerly part OF the w. De
lancv farm which was forfeited 10 the State after
the Revolutionary war at which time Mr.. James
| Delaney was the owner IL was bought, with
other lots contiguous, under the then sale by the
Commissioners Of Forfeiture, by Francis Domin-
lex o, Cherry 81. from whom it passed 70 his son,
| Jscob + Dominck The latter died in 1891. leay-
| ing VIII devsing to isabella, daughter OF the
late John Needham. deceased, and OF Theodosla
his wife" the rents and profits OF his estate during
her life time, unless soc married, IN which event
she was to have one third for LIE. The said lisa
bella and the testator had always resided together
as man and vie, and question was asked as 70
that point On the death OF said Isabella the
property to pass to their children. Isabella MrsDi
died about years after the testatOr being in 1884
Com painant took out letters OF administration the
executors, We believe, resignng their trust The
defense in this case is that the administrator could
not give valid title which is denied Christe-st
At the time Of and after the Revolution, called
Secoud-st Forsyth. First-st and Hester, Eagle |
81; The pleadings in the case are very volumnous,
making l.347 folos and forming book OF upward |
| OF 800 PAGES. TIE case IS still on.
Court OF COMMON PLlAs-T kursddy-Before |
Judge Woodrof.-Glbert J. Vincent Ct. a. vs. |
Jonathan ConkiH.-Repevin as TO quantity OF |
/ rye flour, already referred to- Verdict for plaintiff
assessing the value at $500 so.
| james w. Elliot vs.. John Ire5.-Nr. f. complains
that DR.. j. came to his apothecarys store, on the
Eeghth-av 27th July last The time the excite
ment as to sickness existed and, without provo
cation struck him a violent blow He brings &C
ton to recover damages, amount placed at $500.
In defense, DR.. Ives alleged that prescription
he had given for patient was put up wrong al
plaintiffs store, and he went for the purpose OF
looking nj the prescription. IL was shown TO him
on file when he demanded it and the request was T
used when he proceeded to take II from the file.
Plaintiff attempted TO regain it, and in doing so
assaulted defendant, dra wing blood from one OF his
hands, when defendant merely pushed plaintiff
from him. using more force than was necessary
for that purpose.
witness stated that DR.. Ives came in, asked
to be shown the recipe, and was told he might see
1t provided he did not take it away. After looking
the recipe he tore i. oil with one hand and struck
Mr. Eliot with the other The witness said he
used very improper language toward Mr. +. and
told him he would learn him how to put up recipe.
To be continued.
MARisE COURT Thursday Before Judge
Lynch.-L0RdloJd and T'endni-J0mts Lynch vs..
George GrogGH.-Summary proceeding for rent
aledged to be due three lots Of ground corner OF
|
MED it was due, and set up that he had not been
in possession OF the premises; the landlord having
made prior demise oSa part OF the premises TO an
other person, who had accepted the same.
Tho Court, in its decision referred 10 the case OF
Etheridge vs. Norton, ~ Wendell-and also to
Lawrence VS.. French, in 25th Wendell In the
last ase among other points, it is decided that al
though landlord may recover for use and occupa
ton of so much as the second lessee occupied, he
cannot have the remedy by distress, on account OF
the uncertainty OF the amount due. IL is not the
design OF the statute the Court said b provide the
remedy Of summary proceedings In any case ex-
cept where the rent is fixed and the balance due
is capable Of being determined BY deductlng the
amount paid rom It.
Summary proceeding dismissed.
Lindiord and Tenant-Nosportky Estate VS.. /
Carr and B'ggs.-Mr Skidmore, Attorney Of
the Estate, the 29th Aug. ls49, leased premises
81 Nassau.st. Second Ward Hotel adjoining 7
Fulton ST. to Carr, TO hold to lst May, 1850. Carr c
permitted Biggs IN 20 into possession and b. paid a
monthly in advance TO LIST May. In Feb last the Il
landlord leased the premises to Aessrs Beach .
Brothers, for 10 years, from LIST May, at $4,000
year the object, it said, is 70 extend the
stores OF the Sun Building On LIST. May Bggs
refused to vacete the premises and the present ?
proceeding is brought by the landlord TO recover
possession.
landlord had 40 right TO bring the proceeding he
had leased to Messrs. Beach. He also claimed
that Messrs Il. had let the premises to him for n :
year from lst May, and produced witness named
Baldwin, who stated that he heard Mr.. Alfred :
Beach al a certain time say to Mr. Biggs he might Il
have the place for year To meet this it was Al
shown that Mr. Alfred Beach was in Washington
at the time spoken Of
The question Tor the Jury was, whether Messrs. i
Beach had given such lease. II they did, the 81
proceeding cannot be sustained. There was also =,
question as to whether Bggs claimed an adverse
title to the landlord.
The Jury returned a verdict in favor Of the ,
landlord THAT Mr. Bges had mol right Of possession 4
For plaintiff Mr.. James I. Brady. For defendant e
Mr.. d. Slckles. q
COURT OF GENERAL SEssIoSs.-Before the Re-
corder and Aldermen Griffin and Oakley-May g. q
10 bal James arlington Bennett, in.
dcted for forgery in the I'd degree. was made at u
the opening of Court The bail was fixed at .
$50, 900, and Mr. Bennett offered bis daughter as
security The application will be heard on o
Saturday. a.
Trial Of Stephen W. Foster resumed-John o
Wilson Police officer of Boston, being sworn for I
defense, testified that on the 18th November last \
be the accused in Boston and learned from him a.
that heavy robbery had been committed and that r
large reward had been offered for the recovery OF
the stolen property. Foster also related TO him the
particulars OF bis having exchanged the money \
previously referred to. Several other witnesses o.
we're sworn for defense, but nothing Of importance es
was elected. -
The prosecution then called Geo. B. Farrell TO :
The stand. who testified 10 the rooms which the
accused Squires and others occupied at Lovejoys Of
Hotel. h
Aid. Dodge testified to being one Of the Court m
which formerly tried Foster on this charge, and m
hat Foster and Squires did not enter the same q
name on the register at the Hotel they gave in
Court. ~
John Augustus of Boston, testified to having ar -
lived in this City on Wednesday last in company %
With Foster and Mr. Wilson, and to having entered a.
IN the register at Lovejoy's Hotel his name By
md those OF Foster and Wilson. The testimony u