New-York daily tribune., 1858-02-05
LAW MI,ELLIGENCK
SUPREME COURr-GgNERAL TrRN-Feb A-Beore ys4GD9
pANus. CLEKNE and SUTHERLAND.


| SUPREME CoURT-GxSrR,L TrSx-Pcb G-Besors Jsds.s
pNiES. CLEKNE and SUTHERLAND.
THF ChsE OF THE DISCHARGED foLicExEs.
Wednesday afternoon and the greater part of Thsnb
| day were occupied IN hearing the cese OF Richard
Gambling agt The Board Of Police. The Court rooo
| crowded by the discharged policemen Of whom
there 60O This is the third or fourth tins
that they have spent day two in listening TO ths
| discussion of these matters.
| The case has been several times reported and the
public already familiar with il, or at least ths1
| have had an opportunity to be go.
| The only feature Of the proceedings on Thnss-
day was motion By Mr. Field to dismiss the wrtt a
| certiorar which this case came up. Theic are.
| said Mr.. Field some 600 cases on the calendar o.
certiolai and after the delay, expense and troubSe
| TO other lgants by having the time Of the Cosse
taken up in this way 10 the exclusion Of other business
after all this nothing Of any moment will be decided.
The Police Board, Il the decision be against them.
have only to give notice to the men and again d.
| charge them on hearing.
| The wri, Of certisrsri is not writ Of right The
Count should only grant it in matters Of great pneiis
interest. This is not such case because deos'oe
could establish nothing. Moreover, tho wit OF cee.
ti,ral cannot determtne the important questions y
yolved since il only brings up the record Only June-
| dctional questions can be heard on II.
There ae two ways in which all the important ques'
| tions cun be decided-a mandamus commanding tha
Board to restore these men, and suit BY them tos
| their wages. -,
Mr. Sherwood for the plaintiff, stated that he had
chosen the cercrari method OF settling thus oon-
| troversy on mature deiberaton and as being the
| cheapest way. lie believed that oil tho Important
| points could be decided in this way.
In some of these police cases II s intended 10 have
Jury trial at an early day. to render special ves-
dict determining tho true state of the facts, that the
law applicable TO the case may be then applied
THE BROADWAY RAILROAD cAsE.
John MThsa all respondents. ast jacob shap ct a. spp&
| This intricate and intermnabe case, which Is the
broadway Rsosd matter called on Thursday In =:
order M 4 fae q counsel for the he 'Hpl,%s,' E % -.
| Buep, the opposing counsel was not ready:
MI Fuller snb qaensy consented that the case 20 Oh or Ne
SPECIAL TrRN-FrG 4-Betore Judge cLsRKE.
| DECISIONS.
In the case of James shepherd now under sentsoos
odeh conviction OF writ of error 70 the eoss
IT, cSu4 %s a0S s e sns law ICY IL ss s to the
'si convictions the Court Of Sessions, whether the exceptions
James Barnes agt. Alexander b. johnson, TO-
| Sersd; all the amendments allowed except and N
| Annie Jordan agt. George &. Jordan.-Judgmenf q
divorce granted; slimony, sS per month.
COURT OF COMMON .PLEAs-Feb. 4-Besore Jadss
| HILTON.
| ANOTHER WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 70 GET PossSH-
| or WIFE.
In the mster Of the petition Of Augustus Whestley.
The petition in this case stated that Rebecca Wheae-
ey the wife OF the petitioner, restrained OF hee
beIty by Nathaniel Kelly and his wife, and not al
lowed to 20 TO her husband, on the ground, as it wss
believed, that the said husband sometimes became
intoxicated.
The return to the writ made on Thursday morn
ing denying the restraint IL stated that Mrs Wheat
ley to the house of the respondents at no. ~
Twenty-seventh street, about six weeks ago. lhss
she the sister of Mrs. Kelly was - years OF age,
had been married about II months, and had an infant
rne months old. That she to respondent house
for the purpose OF escaping from the iItrestment q
her husband, the petitioner. That he was 10 the haoe
Of getting intoxicated, and when in that condi-
ton had kicked her and that his treatment
Cf her such that she was afraid TO live wih
him. II that the petitioner has had previous
wife, and has or two CHILDREN.
II was further stated that since Mrs Wheatley had
been living with respondents she had been alone on
a visit 10 her father at Jamaica, l.. l., and to hog
sister at West Farms and had on both occasions
tpned TO respondents of her own free will.
To the return thus denying the restraint trayersS
was made, and motion made by petitioner to post
pore the matter to enable him to procure witnesses
Judge Hilton said he believed that the statute re-
dured mattersOf this kind to be summary and speed.
ily decided, but that under the circumstances he
would grant adjournment unless Mr. tusteed, VIVA
appeared for the respondents would produce IN Court
the wife, who he acknowledged was at that time in
bis Office.
Mr. Busted therefore sent for Mrs.. Wheatley, who
came in company with her mother.
The Judge then asked her into his private room, ana
examined her as TO her wishes IN this matter.
She corrOborated the return, and stated that shs
did not think her husband had yet shown such con-
triton ard reformation as that she was Wiling 70 -
with him. At the time, she promised that, 10
would mend his ways and show his Improvement ~
two months good conduct, she would again I'VE WIN
him.
The husband talked with his wife, and endesvossd
TO change her resolution but on her declaring thAs
she wished 10 20 with her mother Judge Hilton Or
dered the wit to be discharged, and Mrs. Wheatey
ef, the Court room with her mother and Mr. Busteed.
The prompt and summary manner in which judge
Hilton disposed Of this case and the effectua means
which he took 10 ascertain the true state OF
the matter aud the inclination Of the alleged prisoner,
must meet with the praise Of every one. Writs of
habeas corpus of this Deture are much too commons
and it would be well if they all disposed OF -
suAmsry and promptly and justly as this
KINGS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT-fEs L-Bstore JUDGE
STRONG
The People sst George Stats and others
The defendants are brewers and keep q bar enG
garden in the>Esstern District Of Brooklyn. They are
sued by the city for the recovery OF penalty OF 20
for selling intoxicating liquors Sunday, IN violatioa
Of the twenty fret section Of the Metropolitan PoEos
law. AS they manufacture and sell nothing but lagoc
beer the question is to be decided whether or not LA
drink j. intoxicating. The result Of similar triAs "1
be decided by the conclusion arrived at IN ths Csc
On the part of the plaintiff was proved ,ns' 70 ~
defendants sold lager beer on Sunday, anG Davio -.
Corwp OF the First District Police was nIongnt ior
uord fo nr,,ye that il was Intoxicating lie tesflneS
,bs he drank sx or eight glasses at German Psoao
a. por, Hamilton last Sumner year ago, and thas
II ur,dnced dizziness In ms nesu simiiat 70 .ns>
car,ed by spirituous liquors be dd nov gr.k
k.arS' ~ "a become intoxicated. T.. Z. Mofehouses
p.bardsnn and others, also testified to ths
ohii.rs,irg Elects Of the beverage. Dr James =.
Cl;lion testified that from an a1ay zatna Oh sSer
% "n,oe tine since for the District Attorney hs
sd I, 10 contain q or per cent scohoi It's enec
old he different different persons; cider containsa
I-.A Do