New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-05-05
LAW LNI,kLLI GEVCE
supprur coI-Rr-CscuII-May L-Befo-e Judge ALLtS.
srIT .eIIssT AN ATToRSEY.

LII NJ AVIELL1V N
.upprur corRr-crscrr1-MayA- before Judge ALrtS.
cxms.n u TsI 40, at Mortimer De Mote e. al go
Til. sntiop : brough; to the Of 205s,
alleged 70 be due by d7fendan. 70 Plaintiff. lie 1893
paistif vas in partnership With Francis MERCER, ~
;hs ,pbolstery business, IN this city. In the same
xesr tbe partnership was dissolved, and plaintiff en-
yoyed the defendant his attorney b transact ell
business relating 70 the settlement Of the matters OF
the firm, and 70 receive su3h money: which nigh; De
found belonging 70 plaintiff bis share Of tle part
nersbp. On the 10th of April, 1853 MERCER paid De
Note, FOR and on account OF plso,f, as his share o.
abe moneys belonging 70 the i'm the suI o. VI '9O
him by defspdan who he claims is indeo;ed 20 tn in
the Of 20S, with iLterss: or the other Sums up
to the time Of their payment - hun by cesend;n,.
Defendant sets up tbs. he had the money IN his pos
ses,on un the Summer OF 1854, and was ready snd
willing - pay ii 10 plaintiff, who desired il 70 remain
in bis tdefendants) possession; that G. tha: time he
became embarrassed in bis Circumstance, and vac
unable TO meet the peymeI: at once. Toe case wss
tried before; but the Jury disagreed.
Chas. Matthews, esq, for plaintiff; Jorr N. Whiting,
esq, for defendant. Case Fill Oh.
onrsAL TrS~-Msy t1sssIe Jsdse' DAWES Nes'HIH
THE BROADWAY RAILROAD CASE ~ COURT AGarS.
John hibsu e. o.. sg:- Jacob Sharp eta
This is an appeal by the defer isnis from NJ order
made on the Goth Of April, 1854 by judge Harris, q.
Special Term perpetually eojoinDg and restraining
them from constructing railroad IN Broadway. Tee
acton wee brought by four corporations OF the Cliy
Of New.York, owners Of property on Broadway,
against the defendants thirty 10 number who are The
grantees. The plaintiffs asked The Injunction on me
g5ounds that they owners OF the street 10 font o
th. lots and therefore the defendants should be en-
joined hom respsssng Oh their land; that the pro
iected railway would be nuisance iDJuriO1s 10 the m
that the Corporation had power - authorize rail
vay and therefore that the resolution being nudity
the proceedings under i should be enoined; AID tast
the resolution WAS an abuse Of power and breach OF
trust and therefore that the defendants should be re-
strained from acting utde- it. The case was argued
to-day. Mr.. FIELD for appellants; John Van Barren
for respondents. Decision reserved.
CHAmseRs-MAY 4-Befsre Jrdse ISesAHAs.-DEoIsroSs
The People, &C., sgt- Cyrus p. Durham ct al Pc
ton denied The proeE coce to bfns This case before the
David Banks, Receiver, &C., sgt. Dennis Harris,
.'s''' should be s sysU 1 gu tSi: pgSr
Joseph Wsshburne ct al. agt. VIM. p. Wright
Motion to make complain: more de6re aud certain grated With
Jss. Gslstp, President, &C., sst. Philip Az irews
Before Judge SUTHERLAND.
VIM. Cassidy ct 81. agt John l.. Gretscap et al
hson 70. II s ss . and 1n'a granted Win
Tnos L. RushmOre ct a.. sg: Arson Ful'er-Mo.
ton to veaie sss'huen granted without costs 70 sher patty
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs.-Bsf're joan D. BvReH.sD,
Is.c Dhsnbose and Abrsm j. Dt:snbOer .s The National
FiIe Insurance Company IN me CITY o. s% Y0t >,
referred order bearing date tho sta day Of
October 1857 copy whereof hereuno pedxed to hear ali
sectfuy report hat have been attended By the counsel the
respective parties and have heard the proofs the issues herein
sssa. i b. r he dsfssdsa. ind as farS~.!
That the several times in The pleading. mentioned he
plaintiff. partner: in tr.de doing business IN The Si Of
and that sach times The defendant and is corporation
s.ed and osnize and authorized TO cary on The business Of
York and located In said cty. a.. ,...u,...
. On sss9, Ss sI SS % ss ey
efasune bearing date that day cops 81 Which annexed
~ to the smOa. Of tweaySe hnndd dollars on
their stock Of .rehsad,e contained the brick building kno@n
Of one yes Of said policy Ths. the printed
and formed par thereof Of between he parties.
and that insurance ws effected Only uPoa the terms and on
The premium upon the said policy raid 70 the dsfen
Tbs the putis at the time Of the issuing of sa policy aud
until ne time when a 5s .,ss S y II
buys and selling h'sere' wo'7n goods and other att
Of he ah NSysmss5 he lsi Sswcsn
the corner 0Ieenwch and Liberty streets In said city OF
which The PLAINTIFF store No p Liberty ,rss formed PAR s
nsn,is. bu, in the .dj5ioins upon The
IN sUe.on from that Of the plaintiffs. and partially burned and
injured Considerable portion Of The P1Ih' S 80
s1tngpshed BY Pyednio The corner store shsre i os
against the partition which separated he plaintiff;
through and injured :9e d e Pen . so"a HI %
principally the which were damaged BY the hanss aud heal
., dhs n,e s @e ~ the e we're more OF les dass BY
smoke arising iherehom ,.,,,.
pass broken and entered 0y the OH ere ana
Of the Insurance wash Of the district In which the premises
situated ,...a
Tha Immediately upon entering the premises Of the plsna'
ssid proceeded with diligence and care TO take
OF OF the PLAINTIFF goods sSwere most sed
FIRE and water That only c9mP.ayely .ui. portion
the goods which bad been carried out were brought back and
deposited in the PLAINTIFF s.o-e. . , ,r,
ssd occssonea By he fire. sscersind In N,
provided by the ninth sri:e Of the conditions OF
insurance annexed to the policy by dsnterssed appraiser,
agreed upon that the Of such DAMAGE fixed
BY them che o. & 25J "a, aud the
damage in their said merchandise insured
Aforesaid the de'endsn; to tue SAID amonc, OF SO s and
That sner the fire the Plaintiffs forthwith notice of their
thereby 20 the defendant In writing aud on ~ soout
their alleged loss and damgel IA me proper
handwriting Of said plaintiff ssae pitenhoesr That tae same
accompanied with the oath d the pA1h a.c piennD
said sccoun. 10 be true aud " wncl sh1 Oh
By him made and taken before j. Wilson Green tIomms
sopef Of Deeds duly authorized to administer the same
Tia. BY the said account presented 20 me
and aforesaid the plaintiff, Isaac Dtenhoeter falsely
and udueny declared and legged that the goods belonging 10
Plaintiffs their said al the meof the fire ard insured
IS % bs -. P1 sS. sa y.ae 10 Of d 70
sroed BY said FIRE amounted 20 the Of 6s where
the plaintiffs claimed from the deiendsn under sail policy
their proportional Of said alleged loss 81 1872
That the said account and presented aforesaid
wssfsse and fraudulent aud pAnf,
D when he presented the aud that such
to and the
the said Dtenhoeer
sp' aps thereby lsrgcr Of money pain.
tifs entitled 20 claim under the taid policy.
That in addition to the insurance effected by the plaintiffs
ths sd stock Of merchandise under and by
81 occurrence OF .sd Insurance heeop az follows,
10 Wit e. the Clinton Fire Insurance Company
Cit, Of New York and 100 in tie Pacnc Fire Insurance
Conpsny Of the same city:
TIA, by reas n a the Aforesaid fraud and false swearing Of
s;n,iS isssc Dsnhoeer ali claim, Of the .ad pso,a.
.fanda have heeam