New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-06-05

sa,i ~ s pyst. plaintiff. .na isdos
% 20 ,Ss, .. srs .'s re .s .ss fss a
q vi. Interest o. ,s :ss ssssss . Ssy s'p''"'
s.s Eais I.y.ls e d: s.. e Z. s sss.
s;ss i.s'': -. A..
delivery .Ii,,ss :.s :.,ss = :,
so ), s. s e sss -. s.s,' s
Ss ~ q Is S.sa 81 @ vs. s.s's
d only ass &c. !. . As ,sss Of As s. s:.;s
mus, Be ..s pss for. sa:' s.ss =.
wise ths be met By distinct
Th that the hath no, PAID the a nss
ss eS'iSf s :,s y sn ea
ihoesh 5 ,uni 70 sssn the breach wO' containing he
his syered that the dsfssdsa, beth not p.1
mossy mentioned in the note has not been p. Of thai smsI
fhe pleader the due owing to III. p,.i.sr
This The .tsisnens q mere sgsi s,r.ss from ss h.h
THAI the aid due and owing psa,
To warrant the s.i the money ovas
% Ss y ss ne '1s
a counsel insisted the argument that The possession et:h sse
paid That may conceded but that oa goes 70 the nod
mert 81 pns must aver the &C.
rec0vsy,he mode of ps'siss 'AOss se:s
ihni the plaintiff here has failed put defendant dsn.
~ and therefore, ihss the tie
well taken unless his complaint can be sustained BY section is'
s By sss.iOn @ provided that u .s.ie. fae s:S
hs 81 sSsS &. ss
with he cgiao. Oven Special Term TIA. plaintiff
conform Z. be , ; .S to y s S
with compliance with ,ss rule. rs9sssa IN The
,Se "c,s per 70 be ans from the defendant
n sS Sf n S s,. S os u
10, Scss IN.
GDs unsussn,s but there msss % sons RUS o. psss
ss order .ss.,sis .As demurrer and 0sds.s isAsa'
sPge.'i IS. ss question: va. ever saiy
I.ss Ss aS, os s s s Ss So sS
been sysd ~s' sy 800 But md sas, he sss they
this. had Sss .s"ss n. g,Ss s s, the
they tina, the respondent snsr had scaated tl,
s SSo Ts '1 psy the debt to They
end With % e cSa a. % BE- asy ss
debt and g in seOn eOssh BY The sheriff undss son M OF oy
relied pay debt they would have been gSsctsS BY zach
had without notice the s.amea ., sSa sts
.,G the ps S S could az Ho claim &s
5 notice the r dass
and does not dhatse their liability 70 a% rs. sss
fully we think judgment should be oTdsrcdOr the phn
f for the amount due and entered
&c s s s g; .s.s one o r:
r ss ns Of a. sas nS
.ye and here is no foTruterterins with ..
o The the T,%ss PP.' II E is't only
etory One reason given III. that the witnesses spoke bad
Ens This ,s.~S make Ss Ss%.s,.
3 sSus e. 1d w nS' to he
'' there q thu.
fact to ws s rsS hoS 'n the The
iii eia@ proved ts. Gr. proved The
g f SG .vt. me-
e ss "c. s & 81 @ Iss
~ % cost. below, without any costs of appeal
IxeR,H,m F. 1.-The summons was sufficient all that re-
GSsd IN 6s ssd ia. to Ss s'Sse Of whS The
a By !. seT S %S ss,s. so' Either &
81. a. r.s;s 9gs. sSa.s:s
Iss ss sss
ss: D Ss cs1E Ss oss % h sSs
b the plaintiff as hi s"a s ias saS' a. 81 Il:
requisite for iakne the inquest was sumc'"' 70 sA'
"a hs da Of t sss defendant suffering IL.
default be that he had paid soT The ,m 70 s
which he da not intend d. 70 dispute =, The
S oa, hs b s'nf f. a. .u ps'
81. ground Of Upon On the ..
the bankrupt proceedings 80 which was not credited upon
he was NOT credited so paid shows that injustice he:
s bee" Gpn s dI IN me D sew % the
paid $40 which defendant admits to be due and the costs Of tho
Upon payment within ten days tn. .a;", s US
iith Of June at the opening OF the Court
Galonpesu vs. Ketchum.
the defendant agreed
payment be accounted for was question depend
n on wsu s shows & ,@s
in while the evidence for the defendant aud the receipt
The nc Court below has the .ttsr and We
liberty 70 interior. With the judgment .a h, Nh.
poed when The s that At the time he pay
l. sS.n the si Il he S.s %:
when in fact not even although the R'annn hsd
xedxr Of ~
presentation that fact had been known at the time
There maersiy Ia the question 10 what kefehum seer
tanned the WHISTLER he discovered 30 bad or so
Prescott testified positively that was not 5000
There ground for reversing the udsmeo Jua8
iNsH' '"'"'' Wallace respondent ast Taylor. stsL
DAILY The sh, show tina, the plaintiff &C.
eued The second story and thai The s a S sb Of
through the hall Had IN. .pps.rsd you'd
rset door with his name upon without psrmis
Iscn.HAx There nothing proof before the Court on
the Of this to show that the note: wsso apo.sa q
bis the order Of the maker and ndoed ssw
sSe ns s @on s On them from % II the notes Vitality
passed would be mmstorsl a. rate stew1
b Certificate from the defendant that tho notes vsrs
The evidence 70 mste cut ,h dstsn's
previous paid to ~ wss properly
ss.td Usuy paid former occasions never admitted to e.
The judgment should be affirmed
Wilson 4 Totten VI Horton
JThrre In the rinl or dscn'on OF
raniins and paperns the contract for hiring w. vs
and Of the Jues thai the plaintiffs intend
payment 81 although matter for TIE con
OF the Justice not conclusive AGAIN." the desnf
The judgm should be Affirmed
InssrsoI asst uiies and Byrnea
DAILY made 10 the manner In whiesths a.
brought Court the nature Of The mmmens the
deendAD bleeding TO the menn