New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-05-21

The price to be paid for the Crystal
Palace edi6ce is understood to be $4,000 Sute the
contract entered into the purchasers have it i slis
been tempted by still higher offers than that for their
bargain tut have refused though by the sum ofered
them they would realize very handsome profit It's
Intended ss before sts,ed 20 re2rcct ne .Acs in
TIE neiehbohood Of LONDON and sites have beer s1r.
vey.d ut Wimbledon. n Blttersea and a. Sydenhau
None ba-, nov ever, been decided OF.
We find the following report of the pro-
ceedipss in the Of Gibbs aud suether o Freeuou.
before the Court Of Exchcquer, in barco the 9Th OF
Missy
In this case, Mr. Baron Anderson had made an rdeI
lot the inspection Of certain bills of exchange letters
ana protests in the possession Of the plaintiffs ubse
quepuy, MI Wiiles obtained rule, calm, upon the de-
iendhbt TO show cause why much of the order
lated TO the letters and protests should be struck
OF the order on the ground tina. the documents
not shown To be either the possession CT under the
control OF the plaintiffs.
The Attorney General now showed cause against the
rule The action WAS drought 70 the amount of
tour bills q exchange drawn by tie defendant on the
Chief Secretary Of the United States Government in ~
vor Of person named Huffman, who had made ad-
yances fur the supplies required hy the ,ited
troops serving in Mexico, Under Colonel Freusnt
who wa. commander o. the forces aud Governor of
California
Colonel Fremont had stated when giving the bills
that be had intention Of making himself personally
liable for their payment, and Huffman we'll knew this
when be received them The bills in question we're
dated IN ls47 and the pla atif became possessed OF
them in 1850
About the latter period Col Fremont was In Ensfand
On business connected with bis possessions ia the gold
regions and the day prior to that fixed for hi de-
parture he arrested at the suit of the plaintiffs aud
detained right in custody He was, no vever, aioe
rated on the following day giving security. He had
to believe that the plaintiffs did not give'any
valuable consideration TOR the bills and that they had
receye ed them with full knowledge of the circu nstan
stances under which they were given
The letters and protests were stated by the defendant
to be in the possession of the plaintiffs and tie reason
he asked for their production was that he considered
them necessary for his defense 10 the present action
TIE other eide did not deny the existence Of the docu
mens, did they state they were beyond their con.
tOl.
Mr. Wles, in support of the rule contended that it
ought to be made absolute. The plaintiff had given
full value for the hills to Huffman, and although appi
cation bad been made to the United States Government
TREY refused to honor them.
The Court of opinion that the atfidavits on the
part Of the defendant failed to show any reasonable
ground for believing that any documents were in pos
session Of the other side which might support the
for the Defense but they thought it would be better that
tie parties should sgau go before Mr. Baron Aderson
at Chambers in order that the afidavits might be
amended and the matter put in shape for decision