The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-02-09
MarIne Court.
Before Judge Philips.

FEB g. Douglass u.s. Sande, SON This was an action
~ ,he MI H. ~, nno ms '
for SANDER. On the part Of the plaintiffs 1t
that Mrs Sanderson called Mrs. Douglass with whom she
not very good terms. prostitute liar, thief and
three several she told several of the nsgh
bors that the plaintiff not proper woman for vr
| tuous females to ociate with
For the defence proved by daughter OF thu de
PENDANTS that named Porter had I'd i'm proper
prove a al LII, h. but
Ga the second day Of the trial the counsel for tas
plainhn brought forward witness ma ned Miss Taomp
to rebuff The ties moBy Of Mrs Sxndsrsons
who swore ths sac dom eto in the house of oefsn
car and that she heard both desne aus threaten to
Whip their little daughter II she did not swear that she
saw Mr. Porter in he'd wi Mrs Douglass snd that the
child refused to do but finally, by ueans of threats
shs was induces to aay that she would swear IS dresed
the conclusion OF the evidence both Sides the
counsel proceeted to sum up the Case which occapsd
several hours. The jury thu retired TO their and
M er due deliteraton rendered verdict of $3.50 Ia favor
OF the plaintiffs The damages were laid At $500 The
court was wdsd to It's utmost capacity b. those
living In the same neighborho with the parties Ia this
cwse No doubt the i'll b the subtot Of consider
able aos,iiss among them for some tine to come
Matthew J;.dr bQ his Nsr! Friend Jnh p Iod a2ain...
The Ne,o Fork and Erie Roslroad Company. This d mo
ton stay AL proceedings In this tion tho part of
the pl.ntin until the costs OF action in this
court for the same cause, wherein the complaint Was
aaAnst defendants by John p Fort. Ga the trial It
therein urged that tbs real party In ntses was 1atthe~
Ungsr an infant. whereupon tho plaat vas dismiss
commenced for he same c,ue, with the plaintiff the
nrft euit acting the friend Of the plaintiff The
plant resit the MOTION for tho that the
urt had no power to stay proceedings; second, tbs.
the costs or Juigment 70 compel 20 payment OF
which tins relief ushs should = ausn ,aas%,a
TO auhoriss the court t. procssdngs
third that the parties plaintiff are not the aaue Ia ooa
actions fourth that there is nothing to SHOW that the
plaintiff 10 this action authorized Fort 10 conmsncs tne
frst suit; that The plaintiff is not therefore, to b. prsju
diced by the :ts Of Fort and that guardian al Item
u
lection, to the uradision Of the Court directly
dsmu In IL. case q Philip SENSIBLE and wife ss.iast Jas
uces Of the Marine Court 1ndssd 1t woui am,unt t.
meslssy o. justice and scandal Al. upon It's aaIn I.
orders and Judgments and to protect its process This
power vested 10 the Court to stay the ocsedinss Of
Il : most salutaIy relief and projection to parties
from vexatous and speculsting action, by iriespon
o. us q
ment ard even exscution, against nsolvent plaintiff
for costs awarded against him. ia Of no effect 70 put An
end his litigation annoy snoe whereas, epj ,niug
him from proceeding further until he has paid the costs
he has incurred, proves most enecuai remedy for the
evil If this PROPOSE ion be thes the second OBJ
lection Of the plaintiff eestroyed-for the remedy
confined TO the limits for wsish he coatend tie proeed
ing would poWeress in the very where It is most
neeced As to the objection t. .. the pa ties plaintiff
not the In both actions seems to ms ths this Is
mere evasion Of the 81 fats. Tho point b, dscied
The PAPERS before show that tina. party the plain
till in the present ion and that although the nr.t a.,
1
the real party This vi.w conclusive from
Fort In he very undsr oopidrr atoo sues IS the
abs theory and sspanaton Of the Who'll, tr.nssction
Is that error made In not bringing the first
action In the name Q: tho infant b. bis next friend and
this error having tesn corrected By the cou at bar
tho action was commenced de moro in tbs name OF the
party who claims to have oesn damaged BY the de
fencsr :air NJ only inferen,e to be derived from
the facts Ia that toe real plaintiff Ia both actions
and the person. And this brings to consider the
last pont mscs BY tie pa ntf that there is no evi
4
pAiath upger In viewing tae case a. whole 1t Is i'm
pom the esent plaintiff Tns iniesd, is utterly de-
stroyed BY the fact that the same party sctog
the sch nowleaged next friend guardian 10 the suit 1t
knowledge OF the acts q Fort BY Unssr could be far
nished 1t is not ,rus that the next friend party
ton necessarily proseca ted in his NAME and tht hi
and not 10 the plaintiff de aco do the defendants look
s TIE s o. ana a n. =.
and subject TO the same liabilities, ., l. h. we're really
the plaintiff. Under these circumstances ordered
next friend In hia aotcD be sosts Of the
first suit BE- paid together With s. costs Of this scson
e Before Justice Noe irthy and Jary.
Cd,pester Connolly and Others This was an action
brought promis mote for $500, made BY the de-
Thorn pson Gin nd, Christian 8 Dsl.ysa, and Jsm,s
s. Carpenter, the plaintiff.
Considerable evidences taken to prove tho sgn..
tofes Of the maker endorss bat though obi .oted
col Mestrr. Ssesny and sos this urssl for the de-
PENDANT the Judge dehed the motion fo NON cult holt
ing that II sufficient evidence to - the lry
that point. For the defence 1t ooutenied tsat
the eIdoiios and trss fsrns OF tbs note frauda
Lent and that the defebdut MADE the no. 10 question
without ensideration, and gave TO R,ber t. set
discounted He (Robcrts swore that he gaze 1t 70
that he never r..s,sd sny monsy ,om tn.m for H. saa
could recover possessioa OF IT, rh-mps'n oos o.
the d,m thai ne believed his partner hat gwen
30 DlAvau but that they had received consideration
for IT, ard unable to obtain ppssessoa OF It, al
though he had called personally aud With RobsrtA upon
DelAvss TO obtain eli her tie rey note Tue p'Ao
Tiff essmln.d Deavan 70 rebut this ts,tmony ADD after