New-York daily tribune., 1858-10-30
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
STEAM ON FOURTH AVENUE-THE HARLEM
RAILROAD CASE.
SUPREME COURT-SPEcIAL TERM-Ocr 29-beiore Judge

sIIPREME COURT-SPEcIAL TERM-Ocr. 9.-BefOre Judge
SUTHERLAND.
MOTION FOR INJUNCTION DENIED.
Daniel w Whitney and wife sst The Mayor Aldermen &C.,
This morning Judge Sutherland rendered an eabor-
at opinion in this vaca,ng the temporary injunction ana
d.chasns the order to show esse ~a costs SS
injunction aud order to show cause why should n9t oe
the Mayor &C., from granting permission to the Har'
lem Railroad Company 10 their below Forty
pany running the below that point on Fourth avenue
Ia the complaint which the order was made there wa. an
had received brbe been promised the to re-
neal the ordinance prohibiting the OF steam on the Fourth
avenue In regard this allegation the Judge reasons as fol-
lowsi ., Al, .,,,,,
members bbed and corrupted might De indicted ana punished
whether any attempt waseyer made to carry the o
was within the scope Of the Of the Common Council
not whether the ordinance called for by the public good
the rSht Of the Common Council meet and for
may pas resolutions should be free from the restraint Of tue
courts at the Of private citizen the right OF the Legs
la,re 10 PASS laws Ii time enough for the Courts 70 inter
fere upon effect legality Of ordinance after Its p,ae
an inference merely from other sssons in the complaint
Think too loosely made to call Tor denial 91 ' truth on
this charge of bribery true or ase or whether the motives OF
yea or nay the ordinance passing it, the voting
passing for the reasons above stated not an e 70 De-
Of consequence the question Of restraining the mere pas
'aSs o. & ns Council free to ropos ordinance
rnibng the Of steam below Forty second street The
I
remains for the Of Councnen and the Mayor
all ob'trqetons from the free use Of the
avenue to Thirty y-second street by the railroad.
IL CHAMBERs-Before Judge ScRaHAM.
DFCIsIOSS-ATTACHMENT.
Morris Van Buskirk sgt. Alexander Ross.
The cause Of action stated in the papers on which
the attachment granted is the following:
contey Co. indebted to the plaintiff for good, .d and
he n hs % to Pa sast.'d tS pH the moneys t"
This promise valid, within the statute of frauds aud
may be BY the party to whom the money was agreed
It within the class of be found in Farley
Cleveland, Cowen ~; C.wen, So | 4. D. Smith, >.
Barker se,. Buckin DEMO- pp S. So See also DEMO- a.
The Of Brewster sst seme selden 90 on which the
another and not to pay money belonging to another to has
As to the supposed the defendant dispose his
property TO defIaud his creditors shown By .he onsins
statement. made by the defendant clearly expressing
ea S 70 not a & na Tat Ii did
should To the plaintiff Such deelaraon incon''ens
property to the payment Of his debt.
Motion to discharge attachment denied plaintiffs costs to
abide event.
John Hone assignee The Farmers Branch Of the State
Bank Of Ohio, at Salem.
II the affidavit on which this motion is made was
sworn by Pesdsi, Of the bank Il would have been
sufficient, within the Il wilkinson sgt. Johnson, a
affidavit made by attorney for al ths, he
swear. to is that ne has been informed BY the President that
there good defense snc that the questions the
This establish that President
'd There excuse given why ie President ooes DOT
make the adsy aud The pfesen. AFFIDAVIT; Is 10 warrant Tor
Motion denied, without Pre ldiee to renewal Of it, OF
payment Of $40 co',s
John Macsregor sat James coms,ock.
The paintIii brought an action OF ejectmen before
the code Of procedure adopted against in poses
sion of certain premises Tie landlord, with mus, b. sup
h title % h tn nam o Of sf tie ns A :os Of say
years and two appeal to the cour. of Appel 'he
cost. in both Courts. in hs jadgaes. Of aaGaace The
ney then applied to the plaintiff for payment, and sesyed
The attorney for the paintf applied 10 the dendao whoe
faeon piece both adsmeu.-iEe in the Court below,
and III. judgment Of arrance which vas icteted IA ssy
Of he al, rney whom the costs due,
vel Of the landlord who had ordered the suits to BE- de-
Tended. -.
The attorney for defendant moves % vseaie the a.
faction entered upon the ground TIA, TIE same was fad
were subject to hi. lien, therefore, uniil ne was paid
Inc decisions on th po,n are 80 no.. a. 20
ag Wordswo1th Z. d. Smith, 5sa Sweet szt Bartrel
Hsgh, sat HoIcomb IS Practice Rep, leo $. c. p l7o).
IL this that the Attorney cannot make
ssent A. have before stated the Of the de-
iendsl, mas, be presumed Il s e 70 -. nat , M "a Aos.
70 The higher Court snd throughout De anz without the con-
II also objected that some Of the plaintiff. des and
that ID Judgment csnno: BE- revived a. t. them but this motion
not 20 revive judgment bot 20 the Attorney III 20 ~ns n
claims 70 De fraud praeeed upon him n defeating bis rSn' 70
1t is slso said that the Attorney could give .st'fsetoa
q the old j8dsrent This is material The ldsnsn, ..
afImanes for the whole amount, snd the collection Q,
Jud dgment would pay the Attorneys clai. That "
could sstisfy.
think there be no doub, that the parties 81
know those uds exclusively for costs sod oe.
% the attorney That the object 20 defeat ne
claim 20 the oOs evident from the fact that the
attorney. who had throughout conducted the p9eeee.
the anr: atag.t the aefendani. st,orasy ana &
Of hunting up the defendant in Tennessee innesa S
Of applying TO his attorney in Newton sno nyn
signature to satisfsetion pieces and ms Passing
them az subscribing witness. conclude he undertook hun