New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-12-10
COURT PROCEEDINGS.

Eetts-AcrIoN FOR LrBEL-DAHAGEs LAID AT $50 900 =
John Horace Becresy VS. Lens Japan TINS achor
pat Of defendant as Prncpal Of the Mercantile Agency
situated the of Nassau and Pine SIS in thus City
be aS1ns Of Norwsk Huron County ohs and
forth in the following entry as found on book Of the A.
ley ( Co Of NorTalE Hagn County. Ohio. hare been
ued Report n wns b.. aoO1I 70 o sp y
his bands-if their store viii be closed sooa Anoh-
ENTITY lus thus - August 1913 con irmed prloT report
J1s ard say addition, two suits IN COun oil
Common as bedss those commenced by Judge Ba-
kcs Mrs Beardseys petition for divorce will soon be
fled. BtartSiCy putting his real estate out Of his
hands doubt not the firm have the ability TO do
posperous business long they are honest which
wrl he IS long suits their interest"
To the seclaaop the cefe1dant pleaded the general
issue and gave that he would prove the trial of
Counsel for the plaintiffs having addressed the Court
behalf Of their clients, proceeded 20 the Introduction OF
testimony OF various wtnesfs to tho publication OF he
report at various times from the summer Of the year 1913
Agency Was given in one # VIII h the terms of the
putd libel found II IN evidence also that some
defendant and that not only they but nbeI sub
scber to the Agency were privileged 10 the nspe on OF
them and the consequent knowledge OF the u JUS aad
hbelous terms complared Of On the introduction ofths
books rifng variation discovered between the
lte declared and the entry the books the iRl
uss r. E. being intended for Real Esa's," and the
word probably being introduced IN the first paragraph
Of he alleged libel Upon these glounds counsel Tor the
DEFENDANT asked the Court take she from the Jury
che ground of noticed, and that the Dsnts
cOH not be permitted 20 prove Dut one
that having failed to do so, such vans;on was fatal
The Argument ths point occupied the attention OF the
Judge deciding that the plaintiffs had has proved
the libel substantially LAID IN the declaration but that
they might be permitted to amend their declaration IN
saner provided they voluntarily chose to 90 when no
necessity really existed for such precedent ~ the same
amending their plea OF justification The plaintiffs there
continued without acting on the PERMISSION OF the
Cont and proceeded to she pT9dqcton OF evidence m
consequence of It's circulation several merchants WHO
goods had since and now refuse to sell them on credit
Counsel then proceeded to introduce testimony OF expire
malice the of defendant but the Court refused rs
ADMISSION at this stage OF the proceedings adding that ia
The event Of the defendant Introducing any proof OF ms
plea of justification. then the plaintiffs might offer tes
nony the point alluded to by their counsel The case
rs now on.
SUPREME CoURT-Special Term Be
fore Judge itchen-In he matter o. the Fourteenth Ward
EiecfOnThe order Of Judge King 80 far modified ths
me County M ne wnSs o. me %
IN he metIe, Of the Wal Of Richard s. Grsoold decd
Order declaring the viii have been duly proved and that
AZ be recorded. Sc.
Henry 4 Rhodes against Caroline 4. Rhodes Proof OF
service of summons TO be produced.
Amira k.m6aA BY hsr Gaa,dla" &C. .sainst Waller r. r.
struck out. aud continuance ~ plaintiff own name.
GENERAL TERN.-Rabeds CorpHs.-An order was obtain
ga T. Abbey psuce person
infant OF whom plaintiff the father claims The care aud
s9s,.ss but winch has been gwen 70 '''' "
SUPERIOR CouRr-Before Judge Sandford.
Cesar Je,neson and RTE William Rin00old and cVe
Action SANDER between coIcred persons; The one
ftny residing at No 80 and tho other az No AZ Gaad st
I'D dining BiT 8. Brown brings the suit for plaintiff Mr.
Bus,e,d appe airing FOE defense The dana isd At
6ioSs terms as rssarded MRS j. and also as to her
hand, and that Consequently among oher troubles, the
business # plaintiff as phy.clen was injured
Circuit CouRT-Before Judge Edwards
Charles L. Young Co. against Geor0s Pane To re-
cover damages OF contract q deliver
large quantity coal the mines OF defendan IN
PeDnsylvan already referred TO. Verdict for plaintiff
SeHuel F. Trocy against Ann f.. YatesBy creditor Of
the company, to Of stakeholder IN The New YORK
Steam Faucet Co, the sum Of 5000 being sum eia 10
Tie subscribed by her II. said Comp The case
Is similar tined short time since sgalnst Mr. Rod
was formed under the general law for rs years bat
certificate fled that the capital paid IN. 50
Is bound for the debts Of Company 10 the amount he
vnscubed, even though he may hayepaid part or tAe
md has paid the $1,000 in, having gwen mote to the
amount which discounted at the Bowery Bank.
The Company II Is said, has become insovent, ana the
suli is iuJ gmeht obtained against the Company.
SUPREME CoURT. -Geaerdl Term.-Ad-
l.issionS 10 .Ae Bar--The following gentle nea.
after examination, were declared duly admitted to
practice in the various Courts Of the State VIZ Ben
V. Abbott, Robert ID Benedict, Henry Brace, Geo.
H. Cook Churchill J. Cam5reling, Baldwin DIX,
Fran els Ferris, VIM. s Forrest, Theodore Fonda, Ne
SON Giidley John L. Haaes, Robert Johnston, waller
r McDonad Alfred McIntIe. Augustus Prentice, John
j. Skdmore, John Pyne, Daniel H. "hi'"e'
-
SupERoIR Couar-Before Judge Sand
lord-Cqsar Jomesoa and rue as Wiitsr RiHggod ard
Action Islander between cooIed persons are idJ
referred 20 One OF the charges was that gsn'
his former WIFE 'here, had OBTAINED divorce Asa'
In. NeTdIc; flT plainisis' cents
SIXTH DIsrRlCT CoURT.--Betore Judge
wlh.-Peter Hogan against TIE Nee York and Harlem
Railroad COMPANY TO recover Ss3, The value Of CIV
wned sy Mr. II is siaso 5 5s F .ae about y
o'clock Al night, IN s. penbe ast when she u Town .
popsuii MAS moved os on the ground-ls', that the
plaintiff Cannot because every man u bound 20 keep
is cattle within his own inc osure and Il lie permits them
Notable "a because shgence IS shown Oh te pat OF
jania IN pesmit.ns ihe COW be at large and wander
aSopt the highway without any person charge Of her,
AID that where any nesl:en,s appears On me p1' o.
suit and dismissed tie compliant
SUPERIOR CouRr-Before Judge Oak
sy-Pefer geaaerroort administrator Of Peter l. Van
on note In favor deceased The defense IS thar M
beng indebted to deceased and others apIed 70 sne
md that an agreement made BY him with deceased
that II the latter would withdraw opposition to s ds-
chags Mr. G after receiving ms cetncaie wolis re.s v
fs ohlisaticn and Dir G. did giving notes ~ years
OF which the note in suit Is renewal and that ths snd
as az ecuvalen, vas asairs, the stsuie and VOID The
srstaudne ;e the eject no. be NJ satisfactorily shown
ayeillc- was gwen for plaintiff Sl-70, beng amount
CoURT or COMMON PLEAs-Before Judge
Jr-rahamtsorrs Srsce AIT John J. !. Nescrrelf, Sasr-
Sui winch tsied before N rea ION 70 pTa'n
r.ss ieyi.d oeon a. ,he ella ssabshnea n Of Percy
Eesa Sefuce ~ On an execution agslns; them. MI b
-.,-s.s L. have previously purchased the ONCE
CorRr Of COMMON PLEAS. before
T., D.lv-Clary y Tidss agt J.ssc >firel. q e. =
.nfF .FIH ~ n u
sr a seventh ~ and Thirty sxth 81, already resrrea
=, the sran claiming night 60 hold under tas ouae
who is an asreem from the owner hen ne pace GER
TAIN buildings ON the property that deed should oe s.S
A.n Ne giving back mortgage bat whlca 80
owners contends had been foFie tea- tei~S. i' -. "
cents. which gives him the TILE aad aso cos'
suit.