New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-06-21
La W INTELLIGENCE.
SUPREME COURT-GEsssAL TsRN.-Iune -.
CRIMINAL PRACTICE,
K,Ile az. The P..,pl,.

&
ROOSEVELT. 1.-The prisoner was convicted IN the
General stealing EIGHT 500 o the Mechanic snd
Msugfaeturvr' Bsnk of Phiasepis On The trial AFTER TIE
ec'ed that proof hsd ben given q the existence q the
leed bank the value Of IT'S II they hid value and
thai his Cheat; tha ground matter OF law was entitled 20
a. sccuta To this difficulty. tie District; Attorney BY
- ,cnceJ ~. ,,,oM, ~ ieoi,c.. far,her mit5e.--
The prisoner excepted ruE and the only qu@'oa
ssnied Does the admission OF tre-h ey
deuce a. that siege Of the tsi constitute ground tor "ns
asSs tie verde, 81 Ihe Jury .,.,.--.r,--
in civil relative to conlens the attendance nd
q rf'Hee' thew eId~aaoH sc shall extend I, tris. snd
puceedng indictmens far they be in their
applicable subject to the Provisions contained IN sny
And further th-t such criminL triss exceptions
10 sny decn Cour: be made BY the derdsn' in
tb. aud provided BY ID y IN civil cueS
Wls,ry.r Therefore nav be the practice In other states this
~ h,S. precise atue for our guide Trials on indictment
Bile otense' ARE placed on the same footing 80 TRIALS on com
In civil arors the plaintiff ordinarily required to introduce
ell the support his side before resting he clnno,
Ind ss Btnn AUG H s But this mp. tina, be may d
OF favor in other words that discretionary With
and that spps in such lies from hi.
, The JWd,e exercised sound discretion in allowing
the testimony he introduced. Indeed had he arbitrarily
fused the permission IN ch case o, mere t.onh' 9's's
his ,onduc would have been justly oPen TO criticism Judgment
affirmed.
OPINION.
Tie L, SinSon ard DanyI Railroad Company sat John O.
Brown.
INGRAHAM, MY conclusions in this case are
Fst rha TIE plaintiffs entitled u gmeu, declaring
a, the time OF the commencement the action b.
property Of the plaintiffs and directing the delivery Of such bonds
second That receiver Of the real and personal which
the exchange for bonds should he appoint,
3D. that the deerdsn such receiver all such real
sud pc,aua be sold BY him. and the proceeds disposed
Tiird That Il be referred ~ Jarvis r ESQ, referee to
inquire aud ascertain II acce'ances Of the said defendant Tor
p.iu,s unpaid. and what amounts and that the
said pay and discharge the same out OF the proceeds 10
VIII Thst .uch referee sl.o inquire what compcusaiou
any the defendant is entitled to r sccepsnces of the pinnS
drsns made BY hi for them and that The re-
TO the defendants Of the said proceeds
Fun the residue the proceeds Of such sales the sd
receiver shall pay the pnti an amount equal 10 o. per cent
par value the bonds eNchanS'd for e or PERSONAL
him for accpanes or comrersaion the defendant
above stated and the remaining portion Of the proceeds TO the
S tie proceeds Of the sales Of real aud personal estate
should be In ucie' to pay the amounts 50 found 70 es due
sny) the he paid BY the plaintiffs before receiving the
bouos above referred 70.
The form o the judgment in accordance WITH thu above aug
ge-tiOu-, % b. settled on notice.
SPECIAL TERN-OPrSIoS.
Edmund s Miller egt. The NewYork and Erie RAILROAD Com
Crrnyr, THE Act Of 1878. relative to railroad
companies that All existing railroad companies in Thu.
Isis % .s, The, AZ C.eion H. sutiSision 10, allow,
them 70 borrow money be applied 70 the construction OF thrF
The upon which this scon is brought was m,de the
M day OF March s and The eSmPG' ss , , sai IT., wa
Bnghar,on This sufficiently shows that was for The purpose
poe Of extending byond Il. nit. this state Bni il is
maintained that no sut loS NPr-. given BY soy acc pre-
II the pany allowed to borrow money Of 'te
consequence what BY what description Of nu'
mert hey zd the indebtedness acd promised pay
nrut The defendants however srgnes
the act Of 1850 gives the power 20 issue bonds tho esa,ae
mus; have ers.ood that ia 1919 no st oi,uc boud' "N
This weuld not by any men' be legitimate Inference In'
have By any restriction a. 20 tue manner OF e'1enc
ing debt. On examining tue act Of 1867 where the Of
tlr act Of 1913 rated IN an extended o, flaws
1850 22 section ol it w be found ,hat h' right 70 issue
boIds j. aded g1u bit sccns 20 BE- introduced sher jrtne
cry holder Il I'd. Issued Toy borrowed, tue night u
There nothing in Ibis set or in any act iznornr the idea
that corporation Ia, The Right 70 contract an Obligation ir
sps purpose has also tie t 10 issue auy instrument which
either party condter convenient in Judgment Of
The complaint In ever cslcct slfcen leas It oouian.
p III nov obi s1 10 ia ,6s ~ D o 70 , S
frishiuz or operating Of toe road Ithe money aJ
49, this language may be requisite but the money IN qie'-
The demurrer mus b. oyertrd with costs. with liberty De-
iS-' M & ;~si S S.n fG'BB d Eoo m dd
IL CHAMeERs-JvNE Ia.-BeioFc Justice SUTHERLAND.
GEORGE CHRIsTY FISED FOR CONFETTI or COURT.
Henry Wood at George Harrington otherwise called Oeoe
In this case the motion TO punish the defendant
fr contempt n iseaardug tho Injunction enloinns b. irpn,
giving any peoraucs within ~ miles Of this city before tae
lst o. Noysus Ut eol' to ~ .g 1o 70 tf ~
the 1ying r opinion on the notion The defendants ali
dsyi,. chow that badly advised In this matter, bot by
mako iu justification Of his conduct 10 d-g Ldins
pay o - the plaintiff his attorneys Is partial
indemnity bic and TIA, De tieiendant stand COMMITTED
until .uch Gne b. paid not exceeding ten days
Before Justice RoosgvELT.-DE cIsioss.
John kempstOR agt. the Brooklyn Railroad Com
There il 10 resson. in he convenience u wi
cterw s for changing e place OF trial To gran; the present
notion change s b be- oDow ID immsds-ey BY
counter nooG and order 20 issre would be al Idle cefe
uory. Motion denied, without cos,s.
Francis Seagrist OCT. Adelaide Sesgnst.-,Ju5gment
disoICe There being suggestion a. % children ~ order
can b. made $ thcir custody.
SUPERIOR COCRT-sPEcAL TEsw-JryE 9.-Betore jas
tics WooDRUFF-D DECISIONS.
C..fI L. Ta.to