New-York daily tribune., 1858-07-27

1
ossi &, N 'zprsoansrt. bsOeas wa covycsst
tn tis G.ossn se.s'oo, "a cstsg. .. k,sslos f,.
cse.t!y koose. b.. oi sIe,pseal va, es.asI ssi
- us,ttr tcs tee sersa. TsS c.Ss &c. .s
| efs -ssm. 1-e sccuseS tay.,g bsen s,ussi..a h,
b. bsi sYfiss : It's C9gis to De ,s.lasd ftees
| ,gitS1 f.Le:rg IT, sagr assCf 0. tae case.
THi RIGA 8ssEAs lORfts.
Z. proceedings tbs cas- Nsrs sslcsN< n
| p scsy -orr-cs IN oorssqseses Of EtRscads
s.-.st 5 sbseses fNm towe-
Ns.sNa ct e .st SAscnAa.s
The =, pu'slor = te's e1s was tcsds {, April lSss
ws.u ,he p,s.rta ready fos TIA, AID would have
bed tls case eisposed OF Sy verdict. 10 svottsx
the s,.pliaaca was svsa 81 tAe tefesdaats storasg
whcse authority and responsibility Is cot Sspssei
1ae eject o tie sipsist.op las been f. postpone the
ssSass Ct jaesur: Tor m'r, sas. M iasss ess
Lee e1f-el. motion ls n.ts 20 set ASIDE 70 supa.
Is;.n, GO the alleged discover! thst the psntds srs
net Cs owners 81 TIE notes in sut. Whistler ~
uet;cn 10 succeed voula b. dong g-sa. inG.tcs to
the plaintiffs who, in relying On tie stp9stior hAvs
Delay ed II obtanias lrdsusEt IA three uostbS
Tie proposed defense Is not oae tas, CONNECTS sssk
70 Z! Court sri q ,eer of joseph MArrhsos esa-
.sIIs threat ef what he woIa do f prssssd fer
payment throws Light On this application. Az t. Js
seph Sherman, there IS pretencs Ct sry grousl %
~hieh 20 grsr, tie motion. ADD ss to Ae ether -
| feIdsa: think. u1ter the circumstances, she nss
be k.uId by tie scts OF Ger sad ast sas
Ley. in givir2 tie stipulation Ao;oa de-.st. VITA
| s., Johr "a. HS,.
| The plaintiff SHOULD have made this r,otos ~ sSoa
a. re Of tie defense Ct iIfarcy. b,cs tbs
sasver was Fut ic Ae has ceotnuod 80 proceed ssth
| the csuse ana has msterisIy increased tas cssts
There 10 40 ekcuse Tor 1ls, aud he can oGiy be 90
leyed u paynsst If them, Motion for leave % ts.
cout;rue eisnsd meJt ot the costs alter sss
srsTes was put in Nc ccs;s allowed on this motion
sacks,t AZ. HsveS,
do cot tAik tAst tue poItll oi tie sasver setting
~ c,si-u 20 the pt0ps!ty under the VIII OF )ha L
Hsyeas can be strC ken ort With due regard 70 shs
d,fescsats rights Whether under thst viz he ga
olred any estate must be decided - the tta. x the
ssyss II. Gsrss setting up q. es.eeasS vas ss
lsss snerded. There "a 90 objection 20 the residuss
the srsver: Where party has no knoS'edgs Waw
suffcien; knowledge, TO admit ct deny, tesis ns
| Code permits him to state such fscf, aad tAs! 70
equivalent h denial But when b. has ialormat,ca
On whioh hs has formed belisf he caasot uss that
ioin of answer. IL sucn csse hs may sdait d De-
ny ca information and belief Motion granted 70 strike
cut clause TO es.oppa, unless defendant smeafs sas
| same within tweaty days; costs to asids the sysxt
l Mills as, Todd es.
| Tie defendant Todd, adults that ee did 40. comply
with the terms of the partnership by paying moesys
as sgeed to therefor lie sets up IS set OF to ssoh
failure that the plaintiff did not comply on hs pat
with the stipulation OF the psrsnershp. TAAng fS
granted that BE- tn parties aege the truth. aut elst
| both have violated the articles OF copartasustP.
there is sufficient ground for oontin lng ts insncbss
inder erdeIt of ether which appeared IN tls
each ether there can be no hope Of the contrusass
OF the fTm either ably or proftably aud if neither
| party has complied with tie terms the psftasrshp
should be dissolved. Motion 10 dsse,ve inJasN~e
denied, and reference ordered 10 James Maurice, Na.
| to appoint receiver and take the proper security
| Brokaw ct .. sy- Smith -
The defendant admits In bis answer tho whols Oh ne
plaintiffs claim, and sets up an sgreemesi to receive
60 cents the dollar in payment! lie then says sase
he has always been rescy and willing, ana Is asv
ready ard wiling to pay to the pl.ntiis the sac 20
| cents the dollar. There can be nc reason Whl ~
! should rot comply with that offer. II after ps{nsst
tie plaintiff succeeds and does not renew the bAssoe.
be must pay costs. At any rate, the agresmsot A.
ms that sum TO be due the plaintiffs, ard the statute
| Of 1873 requires it 70 be paid. Motion grantsa
Louis CouIchs, as- Emile Desds.a.
| The care in which Judge Rooeevelts OPP nlos va
given was siterward tried be.ore me, s.d jatgms2
ordered for the plaintiff on the ground that the ansea
contained no defense. TEA. case therefore, fcrsshss
TO warrant .or this answer. Motion for jsdgasat
wGtn and Denton ,s, Moore and Wits.
No good reAon Is shown ID tao Papers Tor tds eS-
covery sought. AZ the assignee AID asslgaor sue ~
plaintiffs, ore may recover without the other III sAs
prve Denton OF the right to recover, and does ass
affect tie merits of the controversy. l. Is not sum
ciert or patty 10 say that as thinks clscovcT u
necessary. He must chow how and way 1t s nsoss-
ssy - he Is net entitled to have the motion grsatsS
| Mc,.oE denied.
Some ci the objections made BY the pugcnas6 Ars
| uc. without force, unlees they can 10 answered ~
should be discharged from the purchase.
F-a! The form OF the oeulfcste OF proof 70 NE
deed 3 not by sry means satisfactory. Inc ri0e~
| esy. the gisntor acknowledged ths deed IN hI pres
| enoe, sud he became q subscribing witness Hs
loul have added that be WAS present at the exeos-
ton of the deed. The certificate il Newnas agk
| Wells, IL Wend., li0 the same and the Justice
expressed the opinion that such cetc ate was defect
| i've. In Hol.eLbsck agt Fleming, Hll, 3O5, Justice
Brown says: The witness need not be present st tha
morreIt Of execution Ii ihe is called 10 by the par
ties Immediately sterwsrc and IS tod 1t 10 thor desl,
and requested to sign a. a witness. il is enough Bat
from both it Is clear, AID thers csn be no dosbs
of tLs correctness of the RUE that the witness must
nave 20 become the subscribing witness before ths
deed cas- been delivered.
Second Tie objection 20 the notice Of "a, p,r1er'
can be obyisted by amendment.
Third The objection to the admission Of service -
CLARK obvated by the affidavit Of tho gsnuinesess ~
TIE signature ard the affidavit can De filed rrN pre-
tVRc.
| F0vrh The objection to the names Of NJ. Mssos
ct s is unayailng # they had no interes N ths prop
| city, ard their aues can be stricken cut.
| The fifth and sixth objections will DC answered By
| delivery CT possession by Lynch.
| S,reRM Inc objection to tie conveyance OF ths
moitgsge to Mason is valid and without arelea'e from
the parties 10 whom i belonged or q cortrmston Of
the asslenn ent him. ths purchasers should not ~
/ compelled to take the property.
| EighM The taxes and Assessments due should bs
paid by the referee out OF the purchase money the
Judgment does not provide for that, such proYisoa oAa
be obtsned by amendment.
This motion should be granted uness within tvesty
days the obectio above referred TO ~ vald onss 80
| removed IN the way suggested.
| Nn. Bins ct al. sgt Jas. G.. hcffe. -JudsuDs
| ordered for plaintiff for amount OF note
| Thomas B. Ne1on OF al. sg. jas. W. HsbIs1.-
| Settled.
| In tie matter Ct the application Of Robert Hsssa
fer nsnaarnus agt. Thomas stewart tc'-AoI'oa f~
| II srdaDus granted.
| UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS cousr-J'g s-
| Befon Jo'hPh bNDSh'r' - -