New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-05-21

GQURT
erahsm.-JoLn a. Hayden vs.. l.. D. n. Sears--
Mr.. H. sues 10 recover fJr two months salary, as
salesman at 81 GOO year, for June and Ju'y 1873.
In defense i. was staped tat Mr.. II. was absent
out of town those two months, and hah 10 li5ns W
claim. On the other hand, It was averrea ne was
not well, and il il usual where party is engaged
by the wear, as Mr.. H. was, not 10 deduct 'srlics
Tor dele ndanis
Theodore Chagot vs.. John II. Wagd<L-Ar. u
SUES to recover damages tor hoei alleged uAiC'o-'
prosecution. dc in sending a letter 70 Ar. N
sinustipg he kept disorderly house, AMI WISH
ing him 10 move Mr. w. az executor OF hi5 .ataei'
John Wagdell y as landlord Of house 100 oQllV an
st. and Mr. c. the tenant also Tor comm slctn5
proceed sgs of dispossessIon before AID: McOe1-
mot Eighth w ard, which the fiderman aiSn'sSs''.
The damages are laid Ut $1,000 The letter VS.
sent IN M C. sealed and directed - him and there
was no proof OF his having published ~ altoo-sn
be read Il. when he subsequently called, ana WS
shown il by Mr. G. sufficiently loud 20 nave n
Cis housekeeper ard daughter hear the con.eis'
hhey bad heard Mr.. c. read It bei0fel lDe Oo1'-
held that the letter was not LIBEL AS % tuj
proceedings for evacuation tne Pi9au,Hss 80 -
Il was for bleach OF lease, IN underletnng' ana
Thar action for malicious prosecution cannot DC sas
tanned. except there has been an arrest ssn'u5h
The nrocoediigs rh.y have been dismissed u was
said Mr.. w. gave subsequent permission 10 reetl'
A nonsuit was granted
BEFORE Judge WoodrufE-JOhR Clark VS.. P4t.P
! Lerv-Mr &. sold to Joseph Levy, son oil defend
act quantity Of cap trimmings, &c. lJoSePh De
ing in the cap manufacturing buslneisl and TOOK
his note for abont $50, which Joseph was unable
to pay and it appears he was minor at the nne'
bat now Of age. The suit IS az lDst MIR. PnnlP
Levy the father, for The amount OF the note, II
being commended that he said he would be respon-
sible for whatever Joseph had. Joseph being a
minor makes a promise OF the kind good irrespec-
al.
latter was not pleaded IL was commended that
the father promised only related 20 the first bill
of goods amounting to about $40. The testimony
ON the point was conflicting, Sealed verdict this
| forenoon.
f,,pcutr COURT Bergen ct. al. vs. Columbian
IasarQace Company.-To recover Tor insurance 1ir
ON Match Factory, already referred 70 ooHS lie
diaculty having occurred as 70 testimony, Juror
was withdrawn and the case lies over.
Comm OF GENERAL SEssIoys.-Before the
Recorder and Aid. Griiiin-1TtdI for FoTgeTy-c
James Arlington Bennett was at the opening oi
Court called TO trial charged win io' s5 r =.
the name of James Foster, Jr. for s9,oOO. Ihe
note ia dated Nov. o, 1919, and is made payao-c 70
the order OF Henry lnman.
Mr.. Foster was sworn and testified that the note
was q forgery; that he never knew pefson
named Henry lninan nor bad he any note Tor that
amount out in Nov. is4s; the name be SAID was
genuine. but the flling-up was spurious be nad
some business transactions with the accused IN
ls4s and since that time had written INN letters
the paper that witness used IN writing was, nc
said OF a peculiar kind known as wove paper the
note vas written on that kind Of paper; he loaned
Mr. Bennett $4,000 in 1874 and took as security
for the payment thereof mortgage on his farm al
NevUuecht; this amount vas repaid TO him at
MIR AnthOn's Ctice, 10 this City, IN le4o.
lanes Rencick, Professor of Chemistry at Co
| lnmbia College, was next called TO testly-He
said he had seen some liquid which came from the
District Attorneys Office, which would take oal
ink marks; he handed it TO one OF his students
who examined it; it appeared to contain causnC
slkali.
Francis Byrae, Attorney at law, being sworn
testiied that he was applied 10 bv Bennett some
= time last November Bennett wanted TO know |
he would collect note for a large amount If such
one should be sent 70 HIM from the South or W est
witness told him he would il his costs could be SC
cured; some days after this witness received LEI
g. ter enclosing note the one upon which this con
5 ulaint is founded the letter was dated Fox Rive
4 near Ouawa, III. November 1; the eaveiOp
which the letter was put up was postmarked or
!, va H. some days alter receiving this letter NJ
- Bvrpe became suspicious Of It, aud took mel5ur
a. call the attention of the suthoriuesto y, and q
re result was the charge oiiorgery against Bennett
~ The theory of the prosecution is, taet Bcnnt
as made use OF one OF the letters winch Foster N
u. sent TO him; the writing over the name had b.
lis extracted and the filing up Oiths note inserted
ly lis MACE The Court have assgned es counsel
lr- the defendant Horace +. Clark, ESQ., VINO IS %
conducting the case for Bennett. The cross eXa
OF nation oi the witness Byrne had not conciud
OF when the Court adjourned.