New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-12-17
LAW COURTS.

CoURr CALENDAR This Day-SUpERloR
CorRT-Nos. Sc, G3. 81, 90 1876, 127, l36, l37, -
5 - 20, Az, 81 9, 90 IS, 1875, 90, 43, g. 10, 90
%. A., los, l12, 40, l05, -, IL to $50.
Us. DISTRICT CocRr.-Nos. 3, H. II. l8. 10,
20, %, "a, ., 30
CoNMoS PLEAs.-Nos ~, 80, -, 30, 79l,
7e2, 1913 795, 90, 49, 798, 500 SOP, rs, 1853.
SUPREME CoURT-General Term-Nos. 20, a
25, II, q, 2 30, 81, %, 30, 30 9. 81, 81, 39.
SUPREME CoURT-Genera Term-Before
Judges Edmonds, Edwards and Mitchell-Myers
rs. acknowledgement on appeal from order
DENYING motion to repeal Injunction restraining
Mr.. 6. from further proceeding in the erection Of
buildings being put up by him in Readest. ad-
Joining the northeast corner OF Broadway, already
referred to. This case was concluded.
The question is, whether landlord, after Civ.
ing lease of building, can, during the term of
that lease, take down q small building on an al
Joining lot also owned by him, and erect high
building so as 10 affect the light and air of the
building so leased The Supreme Court mas held
that an owner can 50 take down and build on d lot
adjoining house which he has sold, but whether
he can do so to one leased has not been decided,
we believe, by g tall Bench. Chief Justice Ed
monds has held, as already stated, that landlord
has no right TO erect high wall on adjoining
premises 10 injure q house thus leased. Mr.. b
Sanford for plaintiff, commended for the case as
laid down By Judge e. while Mr.. O,Conor, on
behalf Of Mr.. Gemmeu, urged that an owner,
less there are stpulati0us 10 the contrary IN the
lease, has an equal right TO build the adjoining
lot as third party owning it would have, and that
were il otherwise, the lease would be virtually
divestng the ownerof all right Improvement on
an adjoining lot. Decision reserved.
SUPERIOR CoURT.-Before Judge Paine.-Bar.
ent s. Hsaas W. Henry s. Leszynski.-To reco-
yer note of 800 given to Mr. VIM Montrose,
and iudorsed by him. The defense IS a want OF
consideration. that Mr.. L. and his brother kept
dry goods store in Eighth az. the brother confess
ed judgments TO six creditors for about 81 200
that Mr.. l. applied TO Mr.. Henry X. Pierson.
LAWYER to raise money for him TO arrange the
matter, and il was agreed finally, that Mr. Mon
trose should advance the money, taking security,
on Mr. L. paving bonus OF $500, $50 TO Mr. n.
and $50 10 Mr. Pierson-thae MI P. required
Sl00 to be paid to him. when Mr.. L. said be did
not have il, but he would get II from Mr. M-that
he gave to MIR. NJ. the note IN question. vino said
ne would give SIe0to Mr. Pierson-that the 200,
or tberesboufs, agreed 70 De advanced, never was
50 advanced, and that the agreement of $500 bo-
nus, for which the note was part, was void. 1t
= as also said that Mr. +. Corey subsequently, set
tied The trouble between Mr. L. and his brother.
by bringing them together and getting them to
give their Joint notes to take up the judgments,
&c. 1t was also urged inst plaintiff did not own
the note III fact. he residing in the country, aud
NJ. r. Wine the counseliu the case, from whom
MIR. z. stated be got the money, was his brother,
and kept IN the same oltce with Mr.. P
ON behalf Of plaintiff, it was shown that Mr. L.
agreed 70 give So TO Mr.. P to examine whether
or not he would advise Mr. n TO advance the
money 1t YVES also shown that NJ. u, after ha.