New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-03-08

SUPREME CouRT-Generdt Term.-Be-
fore Judges Edwards, Mitchell and Roosevelt
Decisions Motion for trial denied, tofh COSTS
Frost ads. Roscoe Wsddeu agt. EImendorf.
Judgment affirmed, wlth eosfs-Nish as'c asn'
madse Delaney agt. Hays; Bennett agf Smith
Gould agt. Homer kettleas agf. Mayoee mass mass
art. Washington Mutual lns. Co, Judgment affirmed.
The people 0gt. CASTILLO. -,
Dsnsey ast Tylee-The appeal sustained as no.
tce Of motion for rehearins and order for reAear
ing granted: NJ. .,,-o,ds, NJ
snecial Term affirmed provided that the defendants
shsll file an affidavit of the citizenship OF the Pautln
within Ave DAYS after notice OF this decision pat II
they shall fail to do So the order OF the Special Term
Coleman sst. Dsrine- Order of Special Term az
H' S1Sihers sst 0Grady Order of Special Term re-
yersed, with costs and order ior a''acnnen' va
Gated, with costs Of Special Term
Doiinsr aet Gibson Order Of Special Term re-
versed .r.,,
of referee denied, with costs
Westcoft aet 7aompson.-Report OF referee SOL
aside and trial granted costs to abide the event
Hassard agt John MeFarland and oth~s'-Decree
SsGs,esek as,. AsAs,rnsr.-Decree of Surrogate al
MeCcitsr sst. Tounssna Motion to set aside non
suit denied, with costs. ;a.
Hotftlf ast Hooktr.-Report Of referee ses asioe'
and new trial granted, costs to abide event. ;,,.
THE REVERSE JUDGMENT CASE -Thecaseot INys
against Hay and wife. in which yuoge Nos.e.o W.
subsequently set aside unless Judse NJ VIM, , -
tain time filed decree with ms own siSnsIc's o.
tached and which latter decision OF .uuSe y.
afterwaId set aside by Judge K, already Is,eIreu '"
Judge r said the points were, nrss. tnas y was
crave Question that while = Judge was acsns as
1udse Of the Court Of Appeals, II ne couid ACT a
Judse of the Supreme Court at the same ume "a,
mpposng that he could do %, and an act was gone
~ Jndsa Of the Supreme Court regularly qualiaed
by law is it competent for another Judge Oh !ne gu
ny.ms Cont colaterally TO call in question the act
az said Judsei The judgment In TINS case - W.
the Judge who tried 1t had not acseo sccoia.nS
law in not writing his opinion In hi: own nana Q.
sisnns il after il had been written 50 ao Wig sns'
hath these propositions are answered IN tne am!,ns
tive thsn the point is il the error was not
bv the Judge who set aside the oTisinai laosmcnss
and not the Judge whose judgment was oeciaiea Wy
The counsel said that the action OF 3uosS Eu
monas had not been properly understood oy !aose
II. The object was net to SET anos sne etScsr
but the premature action OF the ministerial omeS.
who entered the decree. The Code requires oe.s1 ~
thipss 10 be performed, and what has been cone ey
Jncse E IA only the opinion Of Court, IN regard
TO the ministerial officer, what sort oil snins
decision t. 4
Tire cour sell conteneed iha. the new code required
ihe judgment be catered up In the hano~isins .,
,he Jucge or az least ssHed by him, viii n lad no.
teer cone, all being cose by the CieIs n9 "a.
that tue conclusions of Jaw and party whlca lug
r. arised A. should be entered, which hsd hos oeee
done and The party did not know MS mlno shi y a.
nrtclueed fiom night Of appeal. lie Contender .aas
irces E5mcncs. although n Judge OF the CoafI oi
Appeals has Tsht 70 AT as Judge oil the cup.eas
Court: that the Chancellor and the Judges 81 ,se
Ia su,remc Court. sat members of the old Ceurt
ta- A Core cion OF Errors, ard al the same tine
in their respective Courts also, that The Judges oil
~ Sn,vsue Cont under the new Co1s isasoa.
we've Especially dsdg1sssd V ~ - 'assss OF ns