New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-03-13
THE SUNDAY LIQUOR DEALERS.
COCRT OF COMMON PLEAs-MNch ia-BetoFs Jazz

/ WHERE Is The pisTRcT-ArToRSEr?
Some seven hundred suits, commenced by eA.Ds-
uic-Attorney Hall against tho Sunday liquor sellers,
are now on the calendar of this Court. The suis
were mepced under section II Of the Metropolitan
Police aw which decsres it unlawful for any persoa
10 publicly keep dispose Of any Intoxicating liquors
ca Sundays election days within the metropolitan
Police District under penalty of go for each oense,
to be sued for by the DhtrctAtorney OF the county
where the Oi1cnse was committed Tor the beneht "
he Police Contingent Fund. Some OF these causes
have been on the day calendar this week. The Dis
tict- Attorney, Peter b. Sweeney not appearing fos
| the people, the complaints were dismlssed. SoGae
| twenty lave already been dismissed
roREGIosvKE OF LEN-CovNTTR CLAIM OF CON-
TRACTOR.
A contractor, when made defendant. may avail him
eli # counter sim asanst ts panit and eroeet The
antihs demand he may haye Judgment against the painna
Grosa sst Raphael Mcmahon /, an .rtlon 20 Drs.
eonsctor McM..on Tor material. urn.bcd BY tie plaintiff
e n P ~ 81 sSn 5 %: ..y
The amount claimed be due by the plaintiff AVA
ssn.i the psntln the s575 founded upon pros
cory note made BY the plaintiff q the orde, Of one Cst and
wien GTogan the plaintiff, tiled his Hen,
The dndsLt ch,hOn that the .mOuot due upon IL
b. set of against the amount OF the psnnhs eiam
and that b. have Judgment against the plaintiff o e amount
The only question IN the case is. whether he av. hssi
claim sgsns the CONTRACTOR In an sc.on Of this dson
s Son the S SSi1 may BE- dtad.n
rendered against him Tor the amour, which shall DO unh
' Th. raey distinct from he judgment o~ns
Which only bis tight and tile in the premises upon whiS
the ben noambrsuce, aud il. spee, him, 'hsty pro.
c.edns When the party who has imposed the arn
uak,s dc.ndant Is in effect the
ueLcns action him Tor the Of the cm sni
the contractor avs sne Of any deten,e 70 the claim snA
has all the rights defendant which be would have hsd -
had been sued in an ordinary acto q the
Woe TO e s e. s t Ps & On s s.s
the claim Of the plaintiff he have Judgment io' the spass
action to the when both patio. biOr, the
Count aud very rgh, and ad,snsse h .oJd hass IN .noes
d,cbsgns The len with costs b the owner snd uds~en fos
e defendant c M.hoOl .s.n;, Tie plaintiff e. tae .aaOon'
Before Judge aD'.-DEcihoss
Hart agt. Laid, ac.-Noton for further particulars
Hart act. Ladd, &c-Notion denied without costs,
dindlnt have II day 70 sns"rr from rviee Of arhr M
OF particular"
SUPREME CoCRT-srEoAL Tr.M-Masen l2-sesss
Judge 81 IHEglA>D.
INJCNCTIOS AGAINST THE Ia crosse ASD MILWAUKEE
RAILROAD COMPANY DIs>OLtgD.
NewcoOb Cleveland SAT The La CIo. snd Milwaukee Rf'sd
Company and stber -.
The INJUNCTION must be di'solyed on the following
Fp The Company authorized By their charter 70 COO
struct rsoad which they haze euersd hos COO.
nset with Chsmt.rin 70 Construct.
1Hi,S: No stockhold.r g to epjon the ConpsDS b.
cause thinks tie yice TO Be aid !. 20 aueh Or he Is Wiling
e. DO it !oI less II be could any Jhhsd 'chhodef msas
by ang 60 e defeat sny eonrst aud ruin tho in'
Fegi The Oily qur.ilon Therefore + whether he g.na
bDDos
t,culed BY the land ersot VI CoDIress.
Think Re csnpot fOr Tics.
Ff The Company Is folly BY ia charter NJ ses
b .r5 'he bond.
SSrd' lfthe srsn Of Conues. prohibit. , ia, n III. ..
~ b' purpose o the forty ur mile. Of rosd tsa
NOR ssge 'pon Il would b. Of yslue csss tho
Ton 81 would aot eg,'e the Coupsnto IT, they could
obtsn The grant therefor
Th'd II s Company have already become entitled to ts
az. o. budIs the road they have paid bf that poon con
rinpsed by he act ana they not requrd 70 sppJ es
proceeds second time to the same Purpos bus nsJ vso II G
The reneral purposes OF the Company. 90
F0arfh: The psper, show that the Corpsny w sshsy
benefited by constructing this forty four nes tne rosd
iuun .tioa uzh ~. u.ed IL only where ssr
ay result that the INJUNCTION ssosd BE-
sor,sd 10.
SVn There nothing IN the complaint % vsrrsai the
nuanc. Of the ajunc,Sn opposition 10 thu sCds, b.
haf Of the defendsnts , o., go.
sHIryp STATES CIRCUIT COURr-MHch f2-ssSss,
ysdSs Hale.
COUSIERfEIIfNO CASE.
n. In I'd Sta 20 Az Wm. n johnson, ass Wn ". Wss
Some mouths since Q woman named Armstrong VIZ
.-.ted in MARKET for paag eouutes.t hs,f A
lar. sh stated s they gwen 10 her BY the 6efsadsrs
thu II. sub:squsnty indicted for ps.ny sad ,..as
rid on both Day The Jury found verdict OrtV