New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-10-21
law .7NT'ELLIGENOE.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CooRr-o''' "'-oe'O'o
Judge bsTrs
rur GRAND JURY.
.c-.od Jurv was impanneled this morning, com
WIN Callerdcr Foreman; Alcn = curtl-
hohAI p DI,'o' Ebcn IS. Croker
800 A Clafk Richard d. LathTOp,
Eawin Chen Fred Z. Townsend
Psrlster Garrett Van Clun,
s'enben Carts Wm Mcclellan
Henry T. Edwards Benjamin Moore,
Rsieh Wells ,,'' Chss L Terry
was quite Ions. aud contained great variety Of offence
them large number OF assaults reyo a. a, naJ
and ma person charged with having forged naur
S. Goa TSO three udeI elsas asin he .l.ye
tde spnsn. out OF the a. xaIs Of dn ne into .
eass Of crimes stating the law applicable 20 mem @
by The guilty parties The facs points which haze
been developed within the last few months, are 'uHo'
"a cosTAs TRIAL PosrPovED.
The trial of enrce Ds Costa indicted Tor nt,g Su
On. p.sponed in eonsequence Of the Of D cunha who
J. Of the principal witnessed
nAssLAUGHrER OS sHiPBoARD. -, che
The United State. ast Jane, NJ Hisn, bOa'"An Of me
Tho d.te,dsnt indicted for mansIaughter, in having
thrown overheard Of the Grey g., Of ne @ while the
james Malcolm alias Mack on the ga o. AP Wa. out on his
Th. testimony was s..s1,y Tn Te sassnc
go 10 TINS Tsisvsr theory Of the defense " 'HS '"'
Aner Sens out some Of an hour the ]"y
Before Judge IScE sSiLno, pohocc. Fog.
Henry Brootmsn al agt The soaoone, rer5ed 10
decree in favor of the hbelant, and referred 70 q
,Mor,opl 10 ascertain and report the anouHs "
bbelants demand
SUPREME COURT-srEcI.L TrRM.-oct. 2o-Before Judge
John B. Foserty ast John McM1rrsy ct al
Judgment allowed, $40.
s
SUPERIOR CoURT-spEelAL TeRn-ocT. A-BefOre
Judge BoswoRTH
INTERESTING LIBEL SUIT.
Frank Leslie agt. Maturn NJ Balou'. ,
Defendant demuTed TO plaintiff compliant on Toe
81 The complain, alleges that defendant falsely and ma
heou:y and M 0 ana Onbh and
.G F % sha Le S.t"ad Ne,0. ow Look for
SST5 pay i also wSe p1 Pse. SSr s.uns
Held That the words being falsely snd ina i blT efn
anneceasry decide whether they are actonaoe per &C.
bic be being engaged in business which could not
BE- successfully prosecuted without credi JuGsmen i
OF the Of the demurrer. ..
PRACTscE-RIGBT TO REDEEM hoRTGAGED PhEnlsLs
-vExATIoUs SUITS.
Smith Davis and Riley As. Dufio and others
Davis, plaintiff heretofore brought p separate are
sections against the defendants Conkin aud Van Buren,, ana
Also separate against other persons who are
this to n a, ssSn osh1 d the Complain in each
was dismissed with but without prejudice to Davss sht
s Sns moitssged It to Du and convicted Of an
punishsbe BY IN the State rn1 Of psy.
property appointed and the subpoena to appear and answer
was him while in prison. and the record OF th lore
osssed property at the foreclosure sale ana suosequey
by deed and sale conveyed parcels OF the property 10
different persons all OF whom are defendants III t a
This action is brought TO redeem the morteAeed premises
IA Daviss grantee of of such property, aud JOINS with
Davis plaintiff Esch of the defendants in the former actions
now moves that all the proceedings In this action be stayed
until his costs Of action paid and make affidavit
RoswoSTp THE complaint was dismissed in the former
actions ground that action of ejecmen would not lie
facts and not the ground that the PLAIN
tn not entitled 70 any relief rms SGuts mao it
the being commenced against morgago wheh ms v
rights suspended and who was incompetent 70
H. that decision correct DAVIS has stic rBh' " re-
deem the mortgsged premises 80 :, ~. ....o
sour Under the system the former actions could have
been brought only In court OF equity the same tu DE
nned IA applied under that system these motions
be granted The practice in this State seems 10 have
been Of equity would not stay the IN
brought it, until the costs OF previous action AT law m
which the plaintiff defeated paid unless the second
appeared be vexaous court at law was governed oy
the proceedings until the costs OF for
er suit chancery paid Unless the two suits had been
In courts OF the same nature ana proceed
ms on the same principles and in the mode the second
son be sad until the costs the former one were
paid. j. Oh. r. 46l; 10 J. r.. 1856 do o. (ferhns "
Ennsn 49, J. r. ISL a in which both actions
In courts Of law, although not in the same court)
The judgments in the former actions did not determine hs
Davis had but that action stating facts emitting
him TO legal only and III which all the parties interested
IN the before the Court he could not OBJ
tain the equitable relief TO which he would have been entitled
had been before the Court and the complaint had stated the
cts which the evidence disclosed This suit is not yehaos
the contrary assuming the foreclosure 10 DC
void Davis has strict right to equitable relief Court OF
Chancey would not have granted this motion the FORMER
continuing unless should depart from tne ue
cison of Chancelors Kent and Walworth dncuty
in these having provision made for paying the costs
fhe plaintiff succeeds Besides II alleged that Riley is
irresponsible and he Is liable Davis for the costs OF this &C
zion The motion ia denied without costs to either party