New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-05-07

.4.Tdaut. before
ants getting said letters plaintiff Knocked at his docr
on nth March, having returned and wished Admit
lance but defendant told him 10 next day be did
So and said he would ens; for the Crrnea and offered
20 give a draft Of 81 500 on Germany for an advance
Of 500 which defendant refused be did not want
him 10 go-ihat defendant subsequently handed 70
plaintiff all the money that had been received and took
from him receipt in full for $1,000 which is herr
fbown Defendant contends that tie order OF ares.
should be vacated.
The wife also made affidavit in which she states
that what was alleged by defendant correct, and
that The $3.50 ft with her secretly and she con-
cealed the knowledge Of il from her said husband
In reply plaintiff SAYS that he told defendant OF ms
having handed to the wife, to take care OF for hun,
s2CO, as defendant came into the house that
day. and defendant said II was all right
Plaintiff further saws. that from the time be went 20
board with defendant both the defendant and his wife
made dead set al him, for the purpOse OF obtaining
possession Of bis money and TO further their aims IN
doing So tie wife of defendant left her room and bed
al night and came 70 the room Of plaintiff and that
defendant cOnnved al her doing so; and any irrcg-
ularies that plaintiff was seduced into cause4l
by the acts ana cOntrvanccs Of defendant and his wife
also that u was tie same motive that caused
item 10 induce plaintiff to leave bis money with them.
and 90 off 70 the West 20 buy a farm.
As 10 the allegation in regard 10 pistol, after
plaintiff returned from the West and found dispOsi
ton totally TO deprive him q bis money lie did take
pistol and threatened to blow his own brains out He
saws that the proceedings between himself and
defendants wife vel known TO defendant, and
that the latter still lives with bis wife. After his
return from the Wet. he saws defendant him.
and asked him % 90 see his wife in regard TO the
money That plGiniif went with him, and plaintiff
sent 10 defendants wfes room, where size was IN
bed. She made advances to him. which be resisted,
and left the house.
As 20 the allegation in regard to the Crimea he saws
that defendant endeayored 10 persuade him 10 enlist f,r
the CrInea, which plani agreed TO do, provided the
defendant would 90 also which latter refused 10 do, but
said he would come afterward and that this was
a scheme
plaintiff, and thereby be enabled to keep his money.
ION the part Of defendant 70 show the intimacy be-
tween plaintiff and defendants wife, a dagueTeotype
exhibited in which they sitting beside each
other. with her head reclining on his breast.
Other afidavits read from other parties showing
that defendant had been heard TO say that he had re-
oeived more money from plaintiff, but he had his re-
ceipt in full. &c.
The motion to vacate the arrest was denied, with $40
costs. For plaintiff, NJ. McGay; for defendant, Mr.
Lux.
MONEY LOANED By A WIFE TO her HUSBAND
Kstenhorn rorasine Aaron Mabie
Defendant kept grocery store, which was attended
by his wife-he being engaged in other business.
Plaintiffs sold groceries to the establishment credit
Not being successful or from some other cause de-
fendant sold the establishment to third party, and
took mortgage in favor of bis wife for portion Of
the purchase money 1t is said that the husband had
but so of capital IN the concern, and that his wife
had $50 Which had been gwen 10 her by her father
and wi Oh she loaned &c her husband. Il is conended
that sic Lad night to be repaid said 800, and that
the mortgage in her favor correct. On the part Of
tie creditors IT II cOended that she was, IN fact, H.
toros ed the store and that the money advanced
by her, lie proceeds, the MORTGAGE II liable for ITS
debts. Notion was made on behalf Of plaintiffs ION
preliminary examination Of defendant a. 10 h.- prop
ery for n Receiver Tie Judge SAID, under tho CT
cumstnncos, he could not make an order on prellm
nary preceding requiring the money to be paid over;
but the motion for Receiver would be granted, ami
tie question az 10 the rights Of the wife made the sub
ject Of future consideration. For plaintiff, Mr. j. Van
Wrinkle. For defendant, Mr.. Swain.
SUPREME COURTNEY ESPECIAL TEKa-Before JUICE
ROOSEVELT
ESTATE OF JAMES RIDGEwAY, DEcEAsED-DEcIsIoS.
On the claim by Mrs. Rdgeway, already referred
to- against the estate of her late husband, who died
without leaving will, to recover large sum for
work and labor during the &c years since her mar
rage, lsaid marriage having been declared void, in
Superior Court and Court OF Appeals, IN suit by
child and two grandchildren of former marriages of
Mr. H.. on accoun, Of Mr.. H. not being competent 10
NARY at the lime by OF bis previous wife hav
ing got divorce against him and the first wife living
at the time Of his marriage to plaintiff, aud she has
been denied DOVER and her eight children also cut of
from right in the estate 10 which present clam de-
murrer mas been put in behalf of the estate, deny
ing her right 10 sustain such action, Judge X, this
forenoon rendered decision in which he considers
Mrs. r. 10 be entitled 10 the relief claimed, and the
demurrer 0vcrTuled.