New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-10-22
COURT PROCEEDINGS.

Court CALENDAR. -ThIS daV.- SUPE-
RIoR CouRT.-Nos 6, 30 1870, g. I26, $50, 40 229 60,
I23 u.s. 233 $685. 2i9, 25O 80 ST. o. ISL IS, 1872 2l2,
49, 800 H. 226 25 252, e5i, 255, 256, 49, 25S. 25s
COMMON PLEAs.-Part Nos s2l, s37, 635, 655,
673 6s5 COL 693 600, 7O3 7O9 rs 73l 1871 7i5-Part
Mos 65s 75s, 6ss 49, SOL, 500 sos, Sl2, Si, SIC,
SIS, 500 500, S2i, $40.
CIRCUIT CoURr-NOs sos, 6s3, 6st, $50 6s9, 69l
81, 425, 9, 692, 693, 69i. sos, 697, i23.
SUPREME CoURr-General Term.--Nos %, 81, %,
IL, 40 A.. 49, 40, 100, Sc, 81, SO, 50, 60, 6l
L. ). DIST. CoURT.-NOS 81, %, 25, 20, % to 81.
SUPERIOR CoURT. Before Judge Oak
ley.--Deu4n 8 Torsen agst Wm Walton. Washington
H. B. Snith, and Ddtld HubbeH HOy-To recover Of
Mr.. Walton, editor and proprietor OF The Ch,rchman,
religious newspaper, note for 1924 49, drawn in
June 1850, by Mr. Hoyt, To the order of Mr. Smith.
and signed David Hubbel Hoyt, agent OF The
Chluchman." The note was endorsed BY Mr. Smith,
and also by Mr. Hoyt, without the latter attaching to
the endorsement the words agent for The ckurch-
man.
Mr. Walton acknowledges mat he was editor and
proprietor Of the paper, and that Mr. Hoyt en-
ploy ed as agent to certain extent, IN It's manage
ment, but denies that he was employed as general
agent OF III relation 70 the financial AFFAIRS dnd was
not authorized TO sign notes, checks, &c for the pro-
pretor or the establishment II was sad, on the tn
al, that Mr. HOyt signed number Of notes, most II
them as agent Of the executive committee of The
Chtrchman and only two so far as shown, as agent
of The Chtrctmun. Mr.. II died some months since
Several points were raised in defeGSe-among
them, that a note signed as agent for The chrchm1n
is not such Signature as entities II 10 be considered
valid note. THIS point has been reserved by the
Court.
In regard to the Liability Of Mr. w II was stated
by Mir. Dickinson, witness, that he went 10 Mr..
w house. showed hm this and other notes told
him there were about $4,000 OF notes out signed BY
MI n and Mr. W. acknO wledged that he was liable
for then,-whIle a lady, Mr. Walton's mother les,l-
fed TO being present, and heard Mr. w say, being
asked by MIR ID. as TO the note, he knew nothing
about II, and hat only one note was spoken Of.
The Court, IN is charge, SAID II was question
altogether for the Jury TO say whether, IN their Opln
ion. M. HOyt was authorized by Mr. Walden 20 sign
notes As a general thing. II he was he became Mr..
VS. agent and Mr. wis liable. If not. the verde,
must be for defendant The proof of agency IS not
only direct authority. but If party is IN the tbit OF
signing notes as agent for another and that other has
a knowledge OF It, and he takes steps 70 let the
public know the person IS not his agent, he becomes
liable. A. 10 the notes signed by Nr. II for the
ecutve committee, Mr.. W. is not responsible for
them. There Is TO excuse for Mr. Hoyr IN the mat
ter lie knew IN signing IS agent and endorsing
al Individual. that the suppOSltlOn would be he
sguet a. agent In relation % the note II IS for the
jury 10 say whether MIR Hoyt N the habi. Of
acting, without notice from Mr.. w, agent, OF #
MT W. acknowledged himself liable. Sealed yeT-
diet TIM forenoon.
Before Judge Campbell
PQfrio~ Leonard ana Rose has HIfs agt. Thomas COS
tsH0.-fOI assault and battery II beng alleged that
Mr. e al her house m Thlreenth-st, July %, 1850.
struck Mrs l.. OF or more severe blows n the face,
ana enoeayored 20 throw her over the banlster and
that Mrs l.. was SICK some time a'terX MAID. twas
denied Tat Mrs &. was IN fault but It said that
Mrs l.. and her daughter Mary. assalled Nr C, ana
he acted but n self-deiense Verdict for defendant
SUPREME COURT-G eneral Term
case or Henry CqrnaL-Mr. Clinton. yesterday fore
noon. commenced his argument on the bill of excep
tons allowed by Judge Harms. lie viii be supported
BY Ny JORDAN on the same SIDE and opposed oy the
District Attorney who contends That there was no
error n the proceedings Oh the tflal.
Inc exceptions are
FIRST That The Court erred in refusing to allow
the prisoner 10 lnteTposo challenge to the former,
after challenge for principal cause had been oyer-
Tul6G oy the Court.
Second, The Court erred IN refusing 20 charge the
following proposition II all the facts proved in
he case ale consistent with any other theory than
that OF guilt OF murder Oh The part OF the accused
the Jury ought not 10 convict for murder"
Iard The Court also erred In refusing 10 charge
the jury the following proposition OF law " II the
jury beIsve from the testimony that no malice
aoFethough, existed on The part OF the accused and
that he was IO actually engaged III the commission
or fesUny 1. the , ne OF .he Commission >! The