New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-09-29

CIRCUIT COURT-Before Judge RoosEvILt.
Charles M.Uath sst Hunter Swain aud Nsnum and Others
In relation TO a large quantity of lard,
already referred to- ell. ged to have been obtained Of plain
TN BY Invalid IePrs.sntsons The finding of the Jury IN
Eastman agoees detained 255 kegs said lard and
value S7S7 sDd damages for deteaon 1872 4 and Hun
ter swsin Vsrnum essined 500 kegs and asset" value
~, 4t4 u.s. and damages $BS bO for detention.
William Banks sst Laurence Odel
On guarantee pay $500 for furniture at house In
Mott ST. sold TO third party the defense to which was.
The l.t not delivered already referred The counsel for
defendant insisted that the latter vated the guarantee
while the Court hello that the Jury we're at liberty to make
The jury deducted the $40 and considered that so
worth Of the furniture had not been delivered Verdict for
EmmeIe, & Cbsrock AT William A. p. Davenport.
To s for lead pipe placed BY plaintiffs wh2 are
near Tomplins square The defense is that defendant
never employed said plaintiffs to do the work also, that
they removed large quantity Of old pipe to the Injury Of
The work ordered by MIR Geves agent of defendant
in absence of latter ana that the work was required to be
done. Verdict for plaintiffs In amount
SUPREME cOuRT-srrcr.L TtNS-Beore Judge mTorrlI.
DTcIsIoN-FoRcIBIE RNTRY AND DETAINER.
Jane Amermsn act Mathews and Doe.
This was motion to quash an lnqulsl-
tion on the ground that complainant alleged that the free
hold in the premises In question: vested in he and that
she the only entitled to therents and profits OF
the premises but adouceo evidence Of same and on
the further ground that defendant offered TO show better
title in oter parties which was rejected by the Judge
Under the old law revised In 1885, proceedings By for
chile entry allowed to be brought not only by such
had estates in freehold but also by tenants oT years aud
dicimert for foreble entry found before Justice was
pushed by the Supreme Court because did not tow that
the complainant Rad such Estate aud the Court held that
while the defendant could not into Affirmative prof. to
show better tit In himself he might contover the facts
might ,how thai he has such woad enable
HIM to maintain the prosecuten In other words tne
plaintiff is to prove his title as alleged, or some title TO the
other way than by showing better IN ine oe.n N.on
The wired statutes require the comp ansnt TO aeg, not
only orcibe entry and deaner but also that the com
plapspt has eli es freehold for term OF yeas In
inc pIems subsisng otheI night TO the pos
session thereof stating the same r. s.. 5OS5) Jury
h,n to inquire into the matters complained OIL
0biSl This would lncluoe both the force aud the title az
alleged the jury TO inquire into the orcoe entry OF
holding complained Of Ob; that forsble entry or holoos
complained f agsns having certain title which
10 b. stated in the complaint and so inclufes shst ute
then II The jury by their nqustion find that the fOrcbe
was such q, stre,sie or forcble entry aad de-
taner Aforesaid the defendant may traverse the ma
ing These records as aforesac refer sgan 70 toe nase
ALLEGED in the complaint which AGAINST one having Ger
tain KIND Of tide that the lnqution now as uncer tne
I'D law should find that the comp had tis or eh
10 the possefoD stating the as the complaint must al
ese or the nauison win be had it was under the old
law Nor does make any difference that the declare
that entry shall be made into lands or any other pos
ses1ns but in cases he ent sea py law 20
such only In peacea'Ie manner &C y . o1
The same words are contained Substantially IN the law
1915 under which the Indictment was quashed because
did not state the realtors title. ,,...L.
The complaint here alleges title In Tee and rsnt 70 tnt
pcsseaon but the QUESTION does not hnd either te one Of
he other but only orcibe entry aud the pesceaoe pos
session Of the complainant and ullaw fu expulsion OF
complajpapt Ii nowhere linda in tbs complaint any gn
10 the OF apy other title 10 the lands ara II th'
Jury mot find such right title the complainant Is no
entitled to the summary re. SPY Ipre tsn nc
has better title than the defendant 6ot the ds'enoant ia
been guilty Of force (see also i'm Wsnd los 9-reoP
as RGsdl ,.. ., ., ,.L.,
co.ts and with eay, to have the motion reaTeued az th
General Tern, If the complainant deslresh