New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-01-13

@ 5. & Co. on their own account and on board
their own vessel the Rough and Ready-and that
the reason it was not shipped earlier was that
Grey Lewis, OF Detroit, on which an order " as
given for II bbls OF said -four did not deliver it,
The say if the -four was damaged it was so on
Lake Erie in the Rough and Ready, and that
Messrs. q. & S. are in no way accountable.
1t was stated for defense that the proprietor
ship Of the different parts Of the line are distinct,
and that there is no Joint account or interest be
tween them. The part OF the route held by
Messrs. g. & 5. was the river and canal bet Eeen
Buffalo and Troy, and that they are not liable for
injury 70 goods on L axe Erie. The matter turned
principally on the question whether or not there
had been an agency. It is said Messrs. Grlthths
& S. were not apprised of the circumstance till
a year and half after it occurred Verdict for
plaintiffs, 1888 g.
Tobias BoudinOt vs.. AugNstus Caunye.-Plain-
tiff in July, 1917, was Captain Of the Third Ward
Police. The defendant, we believe is German
grocer. The suit is for assault and battery. Capt.
B. charges that while engaged in his duty, at the
foot of Barclay ST. July 30, ls47, in clearing the
street which had been blocked up. he took hold
of the head of defendants horse, defendant being
there with horse and wagon, when defendant
seized Capt B. by the collar and bosom and tore
his clothes, &c. No defense was offered. Yer
dict for plaintiff, SIS.
SUPERIOR COURT -SDscidi Term.-Points in
the Decisions of Judge Sanford.
Daniel d Howard VS.. Ellis, Tiffany d Go -
This was a motion TO dissolve an Injunction re-
strsining Beach X LOckhert from occupying
store, we believe in the Irving House, as nat
store, Mr.. II. having passed his word to another
individual who had a hat store there that he would
not have any other-and contending that Mr.. Ellis
had no right to let it, their term being up. Motion
to dissolve denied.
DAVIS. Goodvear-Bail on suit for alleged ma
licious prosecution was placed at $1,000 and mo-
ton is made to reduce it. Order modified so as
TO make the bail $4,000.
Ransom Va Miner-In a suit in this case for
$500. counsel for defendant was owner OF judg-
ment for 5000 against Ransom, on which he caused
execution TO be issued and the right title and IN
terest of Miner in the bill of particulars on which
the suit was brought by him against Miner put up
bv the sheriff and bought by the said counsel,
who then gave notice to Mr. Il that be was own
err of the claim and requesting Mr. K to dis
continue the suit against Mr. Nj. which he re
fused to DO and the present application is by the
counsel that Mr.. X. be ordered to discontinue the
suit. The Court held that the right, title and III
terest in a claim of the kind could not be sold at
auction and denied the motion.
Port WardenS VS.. COLLABORATION after the
decision of an appeal from the judgment OF SPe-
cial Term for additional costs on said judgment.
The Court held that additional costs after the rem
dition ofiudgment could not be allowed
In another case, as torigAt OF appeal from Cham,
bers. or Special Term, the Court said such would
be allowed where the appeal was on the s1bstan'
tal merits of the case, or part Of it, involving
strict legal rights growing out OF the SUIT itself
Andrleu Bolt VS.. B0icedU D. RHSch-Motlon Tor
Judgment as in case of nonsuit denied on PLAIN
tiAs within 10 days STIMULATING to bring the cause
10 trial at the next May term, paying defendants
costs o, o.. D Sfa;liG VS. H. for
allowment to the defendant in addition 10 the
costs, denied, without costs.
SUPERIOR COURT B efore Chief Justice Oak.
lev.-Chauncey Jerome VS.. Morris L. Samuel and
Edlrin Duan-The parties are clock makers,
plaintiG we believe residing in New Haven. The
suit is to recover damages for injury by reason OF
defendants assuming or initiating the blli or trade
mark of plaintiff, (which he invariably placed IN
the clocks of his manuiacture,) and placing SAID
bin. or label to inferior clocks, which We're sent
for sale to England, whereby the reputation OF
plaintiff was injured To be continued on Mon
day.
Before Judge Paine The.divorce case of Fer
gpS0B VS.. Ferguson is still on.
CorRr or COMMON PLEAs.-Before Judge In
grabam.-.Ianes Hunt vs. James Gordon Bennett.
This is a suit for libel 1t was entered in lS45, be
declaration. The matter complained oil was III
serted in defendants paper, IN September 1914.
1t was police article, coupled with an editorial
notice calling attention to it. The article was
headed.
fcer" and stated that an affidavit had been made
by Robert S. Martin who was police officer, we
believe of Sixth w ard comp flaming that MIR. Hunt
had beaten a woman named Mary Ferrs' the"
proceeding TO make various assertions and com
ments Mr. Hunt it appeared, undertook the dd-
ties of Sunday officer; the Mary Ferris alluded
10 is said to have been intoxicated aud disorderly,
and Mr. H. gave her some cuts, with view to
compel her to 60 the Police Office.
The complaint in the present declaration IS Ia
relation to the comments IN the article, IL was
entered, as stated, in 1874, and says plaintiff by
John H Lee, his Attorney, complains OF as. Cor
don Bennett; that said Hunt was and now is
good citizen of this State, and Sunday officer OF
Sixth Ward and as such officer hath always be-
haved and conducted himself with proprlety; aud
whereas, as such Sunday officer, said Hunt arrest
ed disOrderly and drunken person named mary
Ferris for such disorderly conduct, and took her
before one of the special Justices for preserving
the Peace, to be dealt with according to law and
that tbereupon one Robert S. Martin entered
complaint az ainst the said plaintiff for supposed
assault and battery on the said Mary 4 errls. fet
the said defendant well knowing the premises,
bat contrving and intending to lnJure salo pam
tiff and to bring him into public scandal lntamy
and disgrace and to cause the said plaintiff to be
dismissed and discharged from his office as such
Sunday officer and TO cause the said plalntlf
neighbors and others to suspect and believe that
plaintiff was possessed OF brutal and unmanly
feeling and disposition, and whereby 20 rum Hill
on I'd Sept. did publish, &c. The damage was
laid at $4,000
The article states that Justice Haskell issued
warrant for the arrest of Mr.. Hunt, who promised
to return and give bail, bat did not that various
officers were in pursuit of him, and if arrested he
was placed in prison last night 1t also speaks in
strong terms of marks on the person of said Mary,
uses strong language and calls upon Mayor Har'
per from whom MIR. H. received his appointment
10 dismiss him. It also aludes to Mr. II. being
the Individual who has complained Of several no.
tells for selling liquor on Sunday.
A defense of justification was put 10.
1t was stated during the present trial, that after
Mary F. was brought to the police office, she lay
on the floor and refused to get up, and that Mr.. H.
gave her or cuts with very small rattan
which was exhibited in Court with view tomake
- -. -, nd .hnt turn or thraa nnrks inst red