New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-12-13


uncer an Of the provisions: and wha, had been doss
by tie CemD'sssoners % The Sinking Fund. he'd beso
done strictly in accordaree with lac. Ds,isioa
seayed.
COURT OF COMMON rLnIs-Dre. IL s.se. y.as.
rHy envRcHnAs AND csrRex JOURNAL AT Los9xR-
HrAps-PlIApISG IN eAsEs OF LisgL.
Joan HesAsr ASt John u: Hopkiss y.
II appears from the esdings in tina action thas -
article spreayed in the columns Of The CAsroAmas tof
which plaintiff prop.ieor in reference to the Rev Dr.
RiSenbredt rector ct the parish Of Al Ssaots u sais
city, which caused reply from re 1890 1890, S'"rr.
plaintiff bripgs An action Of libel laying his dsmsgo
at IS OCo Bshop Hopkiss. the Defendant Pe~as jss.
r cation. and ssn up Pars Of tne crac'e sna. spPesc
in Tee CAsrck~as IN HE answer Inc pssmun moves
to strike out that pait Of the answer.
BpIpy J-Ons part II the alleged libel eoesssts q
charge that the plaintiff paper lis, unhsppsy, gse-
ting more and more prolific ~ g- sesn' ss~
the l.rgy and hn now attacked with such rccAess
'anc scsndsleus e1usvaSance ono OF the oess 49,
most laborious men among u.s., &C: ana s soe n
ever after alleging that the 9Th Octobee, 1880. NE
aioresad, caused to be published in the said new
payer, Tie Cksrclnas, "of aud concerning the ksv.
DIR VIM. L. Eigeubrodt the following tslse, ma
'hcioUs and srO.s PereesAises 81. cs' xsso JAIL
what purports to be article publshed u the PLAN
,if paper containing the perSen aliss referred To-
Tie plaintiff moves 10 strike out the article o. in-
proper, because il was stricken out OF an answer prs-
vossly inteTpossd, and because Is evidence ~ tee
fast that personalities INDUCED in, and not the
fact tell Which sops can be eel ost - sjsst6eaiisa
In reference 10 the first objection, V suxcsens -
cay that Il was Rot iecited In the answer rsvSoey
served in the relation or connection. and oesae
presented differently, requires TO be considered upos
different principles In regard to the second oo,eo-
ton, il is answer that, though the defendant nae
matter charged hbelous, he has the right TO aicgs
any facts and circumstances in mitigation Of damage.
rkieh tend 10 rors the truth Of ne charge ee~pased
Of whether ito truth be alleged or denied IN the anss
Rush act. Prssser. Kernan, $780, 354. To the fsotS
end cifcun stances the defendants cannot dsmar o.
reply but may contest their huh and admns,ouity
on the trial. Newman agt Ou), S4nd. oos. N
this aspect the matter asked to be stricken oat muss
be retained and the melton denied without costs.
SUPREME CoURr-srss,AL rsrn-Dsc Ia-Bssorc Judge
DAWES.
THE JOHN STREET CHURCH AoAiS.
Robert shaw al. ast. Benjamin W. Benson ~A
The quarrel between the down owners and uptown
about the John street CIurch came up again TO
day motion by the plaintiffs to refer the 9uestos
Ii, was opposed by the defendants who inssted that
the question had been already at least once passed upon
in such uaDner as to bind all PARTIES. The Court de-
mel the motion.
thereupon asked for Injunction to restrain the Do
PENDANTS from proce< ding under the award Of Bishop
Simpson, which authorized the sale OF the church. sa4
hss since been adopted as the Judgment tho SuPrems
Court The plaintiffs claim that this judgment binde
only the parties " the suit wherein VA given, aDA
that u ey having become church-membcss since ~
rendition have right 20 reopen all tho questions IN hA
case The defendants Insist that the award and Jud
ment thereon are conclusive. similar Question haa
been nooted in this same suit before Messis: l.
Chatfed and p. Y Cutler appeared Tar tho PAin'inss
ard Judge Edmonds for the defendants. Tho srxu-
ment was quite pIotraced beginning before O'Clock
and lasting into the evening.
Before Judge CLERKE.
THE PHELPS WILL cAsE.
oyi, Phelps. ExecutII Of the will Of Anssa
| q. Phelps, deceased, ast Anson o. Phelps, j., 81 al
| Judge Cerke will announce bis decision In the above
L - ,barS Monda NJ at q 4 n.
Augusta. H. Novea =, .. .st Alexander Hols,'. ct ..
Motion granted, without costs.
In 70 the Receiver Of the Atss Insurance Company
Motion denied, with coets
Susan A. Hsight OF al sst Ogden Seelye ct a.
Mr. Niles TO be appointed guardian ad htem.
Valentine H. Peters ct al sst. J. Doremus Mills ~ a.
Referred to John T. Crosby to settle tho Issue.
SUPERIOR CoURT-T,.L Trsn-Dec. Ia-Seiors Judge
The LAW NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. QUESTION
usDtR THE LAW or 1862
Vim. Furi' AIT Robert B. Coleman and Chss a. ste:oc
This seton s brought against the propretos OF the
Astor House. as such. On the sd OF last January the
plaintiff who Is a resident Of Pedang, on the isAnd u
Sumatrs in the East Indies and member Of tho hrn
of Purys Co. there, arrived In the steamship Africa.
from Liverpool and at up at the Astor House. Hs
story Is, that on the afternoon OF tho same day nn
trunk containing wearing apparel and four nundfee
gold sovereign, in belt, which he had with him ior
was broken open and the money stolen; the trunk
being in bi, lodging room at the time, and the door
| locked. lie claims q, 94f damages.
| The defendants, beside Getting up general denial.
r.ly upon the law Of 1855 which exemp,s innkeepou
from liability in certain cases. The act provides tnat
apy proprietor of hotel who provides safe tor The
safe keeping of jewel, money, &C., IN the once sse
notifies every guest Of that fact by notice posted y
in his room, shall not be liable to guest who loses
| money which he has neglected to deposit accordingly.
The plaintiff was allowed TO prove BY his own an
supported oath that the soysregns were In his trunk.
| and were stolen. .
| The testimony as to whether there printed
notice In the plaintiff somewhat conflicting.
but il was proved that be was advised BY porter -
he was dressing soon after ne was snown % nn Ioo@.
cafe In tie .ce. Upon the efficiency OF this yerba
notice important question Of law arose. which Judge
sosson, without expressing bis own opinion, reserved
| for subsequent d. cision in the Court above.
Another question raised was whether the money N
the hsnds OF the plaintiff reasonable amount oS
| his travelling exIentes.
| This question, with number OF others, Wa subnss
ted sp.ciay TO the Jury In order that they might pc
upcn ell the questions Of fact IN the csse N such
| nshDer that the Court alone could decide tho whole
| case by deciding the questions Of law On sPPeeL
Their special ssdngs are therefore, no. rS,n ;n ~
| pia niiB; Miller and Dr'lin fur dDfendanb.
| IMPORTANT RULING UNDER THg STATUTE or yRAgDs-
1h, Chs ks rsu .s f 70 reco,er tho
value Of certain dry goods alleged to have Deso gvoe
| in exchange for a hOue ana lot 10 Forikn stfee.-
The qua stOn 10 the case was whether there nsd Doso
dcliyiry and acceptance Of the goods WITHIN '"'
| OF Frauds. -
Afnr The ALLEGED contract, the goods were seects4
from lsrger quantity boxed up, marked win inc pm
the aeSeLdant during the plant rs pleasure. ThA
ns;stf then den anded the goods, but they were ~
| iufed. A, -
The defendant moved for nonsnit on the grous1
hnt there wa, no delivery and acceptance within tAs
| statute of Frauds. The motion was granted.
William Fuleston for plaintiff; j. Perry and Wa.
Curtis Noyes for defendant.
MABBGBD.