New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-05-18
SUPERIOR COURT-Befors Judge OAKLEY.
CI--L I.a...-.I.a.. ~

William II. Clark agt metropontan BANK
To recover penalty OF OOO Tor receiving bill Of Bank
Of Charleston payable at Bank OF NewYork in part pay
ment Of note Of Byron Cos already referred TO- The
witness Albert \ James who paid ths oil with othsrs,
continued bis testimony Il In the employment Of Edward
Belknap broker Wallst who owns bank, the Gov
eminent Sto Bank Of Michigan and buys and sells them
the any other foreign bank Mr. James brother OF
witness, a partner Of Mr.. Beknap Mr.. Beknap gave
witness the package Of bills, $500 to take up ths note Of
Mr Corss; be told witness TO take notice Of the ssa
Charleston bill contained in the package, and keep
a memorandum Of H. which witness did nothing
said q, the bank when the note was taken
up took up several notes at the same baak
Of different parties similar Charleston bill that ID
payable at Bank Of New York; Of denomination OF
s0, S. &c, among the packages Of bills paid for
them Is said this plaintiff has entered 90 or ca
different suits Of similar kind a. this against the Metro
potsn Bank for Charleston bills thus received by IT, and
the Council for hsdeense says not alone 10 the pro-
ceedipg but there is combination against the Bank on a.
count II its receiving at low rate money OF oatofown
banks Witness did not know at the time be took tbs
memoranda and paid the nOts, that II penal for the
bank receive it; Mr.. Cross u in and out OF Mr. Bel
knsps office; do not know bis business he does not have
dek now in tbs Office does not know what Mr. CArks
busLesis
II was shown on the part Of the Bank that any bill Of
the Bank of Charleston thus received was sent BY tho
Teller in similar a dram, 20 the Bank OF New
York nsxt morning for redemption also that the Cashier
President and Directors II Metropolitan Bank knew moth
g Of their having been received the hrst ntm~ton they
had being the suits brought II successful the party
bringing them and any person under the Law VI 1889 has
riphf 20 do So is entitled TO o. 900 in each suit
motion made BY hessfs SANFORD and Lord 70 dis
miss the complaint the ground that they drss.
and no. ordinary bills that the object of the Metropolitan
Bank n taking them not 10 circulate bat 10 prevent
their circulation and Immediately present them for pay
ueIt and therefore not within the law also that the Di
reccrs &c, knew nothing Of the matter and cannot be
held for the penalty The notion for the present was de-
MED and the Is to 90 TO the Jury will be summed
up this forenoon.
Bsbrs Judge CAnPsSLL.
Beerre and Burnside at. ClsatGs Dord
On alleged warranty of q bales blankets bought OF Mr.
ID Ia ls44 and cent BY plaintiffs to Orleans. bat when
ooeped there II Is alleged found 70 be 90 much moth eaten
injured A. 10 be worth far lees than paid for them
They srs sent back bat Mr d. refused 70 receive them
den;ipg any warranty but eontendng that the plaintiffs had
an nasortnnity 10 essntns Tor themselves Suit We
bponybt and verdict gvu for paints but set aside by
The Cour, Of Appeals and neprsssnt nsw trial allowed
n'i'0'' Msanes A r4rrs At. JsrsuhB re1>rsp -
To recover OF sxJustce L., under secSx ofk title l.
chan o Part which declares n any Person, either
s.v or as member Of any Court in execution OF any
order Judgment or process shall knowingly recommt i'm
prson or restrain 81 his liberty for the same &c
sny person discharged shall knowingly AID o. ssss
therein be shall forfeit 70 the party aggrsved s' sna
hal slso he deemed guilty Of smsdemsAnor
Ii Is alleged that in March, 1853 While dsshha; ...x
Justice OF Police complaint was made psa,ls ' - -
plaintiff Of the latter having obtsisec seves ~ .'n.S ~
worth e7o under false Pretsnsss On sS'A " ~'~'~