The New York herald., 1851-10-18

which they had been in the habit of supplying him
The plaintiff offered to return the butter, but the ae-
maintained that the defendants made no sucn pomss
as that stated by the PLAINTIFF that was OF gooa ,ha
SCENTS for the ss Of Emsrys butter and shortly before
the purchase Mr. Hoppock called At pianns store lor
the purpose Of collecting debt wnicn nSd 10 oes nv mere
Of Emery Q butter?" MIR Hoppock said they hsd not
but he would write to Mr. Emery to New Jersey, Tor
supply Plaintiff agre to give 10 cents per pound anu
MI Hoppock wrote to Jersey and after the lapse OF
some days received the quantity stipulated for wnch
they immediately delivered to plaintiff ADJOURNED
'' Before the Hon Judge Ingraham
Der I6-Samuel F. Tracey rs The hep York Croon
and Steam Faucet C%,apanyend ;aest nee e. "; MleSg w%
an for money and notes placed IN the hands OF de-
fer Reynolds by the defendant Metcaf and suose
ouepty assigned by Metcalf to the defendant Mott
default was Of the defendants Reynolds and Gross
for non appearance The plaintiff claims to recover for
a debt due him by Metcalf The Court gave judgment
that the paint Is not entitled to recover the in
and that the defendant Mott should reco-
the defendants Reynolds and Gross the sum OF
S2ss1 q and that the actien be dism sed as TO the
other defendants 1t further ordered that the defend
paid his costs out OF the fund Of the contro
veIsy.
ocr 16. James Han ion George IaTtson Henry Sly-
dam Jr, .4iue Reed and Dani Suydam Isaac New-
ton Daniel Dretc, and Seth +. KeAy.-This was an ap-
picstion injunction, Pendenfe lite under the fol-
lowing circumstances. The plaintiffs and
the building the easery side of West street.
between Cortlandt and Liberty streets in this city
The defendants members OF an incorporated asso
citation engaged in running line OF stearb pats (caed
tho PEOPLES Lnef) from this city to Albany and in
the occupation essees, of the wharf and bulk
head forming the westerly side OF West street in front
the premises of the plaintiff and OF the pier extend
ing theretrom the North river; aud this assoca-
tioD the Peoples Line composed part OF the
san members the present have been in such and
occuIation for more than sixteen years last past 1t
appears from the sffiavits submitted that for many
years last asst more than one half in width OF the pier
referred its junction with the westerly side of
Wett street, has been occupied by building used
the cce OF the association by which the entrance to
upon the pier reduced or obstructed and the
passage Of vehicles and carts with freight passengers
&c and from the steamboats, hindered aud that by
tht great increase Of the business this hindrauce be-
great that at times the street adjacent
thereto became obstructed by carts &C. awaiting the
opportunity to approach, or receive their loading from
the boats That with view to obviate this incon.
yepience the deen formed plan of alteration in
the st and upon tie wharf and pier The
sdsvits state that plan or diagram OF tne alterations
vas left with the plaintiff, George Harrison, and
that he afterwards went with the defendant Newton,
the wharf and rsceivee from him mnutey detailed
zpianstion of the whole plan, and that he expressed
himself satisfied there with and approved the The
alterations were subsequently commenced. The pre-
sent plaintiffs fled bill in this Court ales ng that
the defendants erecting a public nuisance inju
rous to them in their private property and praying the
Court 70 restrain the defendants from proceeding with
erection Of the building and fence and from erect
ing any other building the wharf bulkhesd
Upon that bill (the parties being restrained until the
motion eeuld be heardJ a melton made at special
term for Injunction restraining the during
the pendency of the suit ana after full argument the
motion denied Thervupon the defendants com
bill complaint To the Court and ak that the
be restrained by inj Junction from proceeding with
he construction Of this roof building as it styled
1t to me, says Judge Woodruff, that this Was
neither necessary nor proper to commence new suit
for the alleged in the present complaint SO
the decision Of the motion in the other suit
based principles applicable to this they have my
full concurrence ane they he'd not, should respect
tn. views Of my far TO leave the plaintiffs
TO their appeal TO the general Court ap
proprate place for reviewing the decisions made b. the
judges seyeraly George Harrison the active plaintiff,
,ba lie al hv
and the defendants engage in and commence the
wtrk without objection bur examined and approved the
plan in all its details IT, therefore, the Court were
tisted that the erection complained Of were nuisance
ought be restrained At his instance The Judge
then several authorities and enters very elaborate
" into the particulars Of the case, and concludes by
saying Without at all attempting TO settle upon mere
aesv;s either the question Of tight between the par
tie determine the disputed question of danaget,
seems enough las been said TO show that both
doubtful The power OF court Of equity to inter
fvre suu Inary with the business the citizen and stay
his bands ii may b. for six month"; it may be for years
before the fun merits Of a controversy be examined
and settled hearing Of the is not lightly to be
e4ercCd SAlutary the use Of this power often i II
IL IN. degree srbt ery and wise discretion ought to
be the guide In its exercise II has seemed to that
should be jealous Of discretion which may easily
be abused and that cafe preced Mt demands iororaIce
in all Of doubt tn numerous in
which courts called upon TO enjon and in which
in fact they by sta; ute authorized TO eD lin mat
there DANGER thai the harsh and arbitrary character
of this summary interferencs may be overlooked The
court in their Integrity will rot 1t Is true, suffer them
TO be used or the purposes cf oppression; but In my
ud ment the necessity sboud be plain before the power
Is exercised II conceded on the argument, that II
The right be not plain and the injury be doubtful the
injunction ought not - be granted The motion must
be denied, With $40 COTS.
n, Custom Rs,pec,.ng Mis.ek,s in Banks. - Prize
IS. H9WS.-1his was q motion TO set aside report OF
referee The Judge said sc lar the motion Is urged
the ground that he report Is against evidence IL should
be denied But am not satisfied that the evidence Of
the Of banks rot TO correct mistakes
unless dco before the party alleging mistake has
left the bank was competent The bare statement OF
~ mis- has fact
and the rscbcston Is according to the evidence
sde 10 depend upon he enquiry whether by another
mistake sgsnst the bank and in favor of some other
person the cash account is made to balance IL the
Cheers tellers o. the bank made bus one mistake
the day they will recfy IL but IL by reason Of two or
mistakes they fail 70 derive any profit from the
they viii correct neither seriously doubt the
legality Of any such custom II appears 10 fur
tber reelection a. it did the argument custom not
TO do right when the right Is established II IL could be
claimed that the failure TO poit out the mistake before
the party left the bank was ne cause OF subsequent
nisskes 20 tina. the bank led, by such omissions,
to DO any thing TO its own Tflldice there might be
formation for an argument In support Of such
custom And possibly such custom between banks
and their sccutom ed dealers brought home TO the lat
ter light obtain footing one of the conditions upon
which the dealing Is had between them and yet doubt
whether there IL then any mutually to support H. This
QUESTION not raised on the examination of the Wit
but i doubt whether the banks expect their
eesers to retain money overpsd TO them though not
discovered in the bank. but, without deciding now
uItn the legality of this custom IL had relevancy
this csse The action was not against the bank Rs.
cevery was sought sgsibst the defendant the only
grounds which counsel venture q claim that II could
he sustained vz-that he had appropriated the plain
tin money 70 a use; that having undertaken
TO excbsnge the plaintiffs bill for $1,000, he con-
Quoted peglgenty or irauduenty that the
plaintiff sustained damage In neither respect
had the custom Of banks any bearing upon
the liability Of the defeb1 The report Of the referee
does not howsvsr dseloe tho facts found nor the
f.rees conclusions upon those facts The evidence
ferrpd received subject 70 objection ana how the
objection finally Disposed Of by the referee does not
stp.a An order shouid Be made requiring the referee
make special report Of the fscs formed by him aud
h conclusions Of law upon the facts together With his
final ruling upon the admission Of the evidence objected
The motion 20 aside his report must stand
until the coming In Of such special report
Assre