New-York daily tribune., 1859-10-01
La W INTELLIGENCE.


SUPREME coURT-CaAssER,-sep- so-Bsfors Justice
THE RECORD COMMISSIONERS AGAINST The BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS.
The People rel McsredoD and Baker ss The Board Of
Superyisors of the County OF New.Yort.
On the Nth of September Justice lngrahan granted
alternative andamus compel the Board of Super
vieors to pay the of 900 for expenses incurred
by the Board of Commissioners Of Record in having
the records of the Registers and County Clerks Office
prir ted aud bound. The wOIk was done by McSpedon
Baker, who have commenced q new suit TO obtain
payment for their labor aud the order requiring the
Supervisors to show granted upon their ap-
plcstiOn.
This morning, on the return of the order, the
postponed for few days to give the respondents
time 10 prepare return.
tx Judge Edmopds for McSpedon and Baker; A. K.
Lawrence, jr., for the Board of Supervisors.
PARTNERsHIP-QUEsTIo Oh PRACTICE.
Mccarthy agt feske.
INGRAHAM, 1.-THE parties 10 this action part
consequence differences ths each party
dg to close Up the psrnsIhp and to s.n
in the Superior Court and hoCsthy in
granted on the 4h Il which With Ii, Summons
served en- Mccarthy on he i5h n't,n about m In tb.
psre .ppc,iion Injunction for Receiver aud
ssb ss .ns .@a Of the
in the action and the were served on the defend
motion made aside the Injunction in this case
and 70 rR turtle. preceding ts.Fe iS Sp%S the
pse and subject matter before tn. application 70 th CSa
ard that the appointment Of Receiver on az eI p' 'ppn'
The subject acton the partnehP easet. aud th;
Under the decisions Which have epg.tedy been made in tai,
Court and the Superior Court the Court which first acquire;
jurisdiction obtained any other Court in which sub
SSfP5 . oR Of .mty % from desire 70 avoid cc
r'dctop resisn toe further prosecution Of ne scGna
Of beth actions and would no. apply where other parties
made litissn's.
The question ther In this case Is, which Cour' ht oohsd
By section is9 Of Code. provided that the Court h
l... and pl
the bs quent proceedings time Of the service Of the
the In ss cas-.
held that uch jurisdiction obtain ed at the time the attach
him on or the service Of the be considered
coberDg judotion IL clear that the action IN tbe superior
iGh and in tb. CoGit on the 18th Sept The in .h.
action in that Court served about o'clock on the wm
tie III the action in this Court was served aooute ocoek
Of the ',me day The appointment Of Receiver was o. @ DO
provisional remedies and either would give Of the
the Court in which the action brought In the pet
service Of without the defend
ant could be sustained There Of peculiar character
nature to require immediate action such those in which the
immediste required the pfop.ry
from destruction, but where an uDctou ample protect t,s
property from less unit motion be made r Receiver IL
h manifesy improper deprive Of the pssson on
partnership property without notice. and even without bsias
An Of the opinion that the Superior Court bad arsdlction
& oton p.t b aysS The motion for Receiver and for
injunction by be obtained BY the defendants
na The 10th ps. can be much better protested BY
either Court scon than BY suit, the s..s
psiiie, necessary tepas 70 Pf''ucs 0'hh'' VI
A. the Receiver hss expended money protecting this proper
" and other purposes connected with IT, by order OF the
Cu II proper that he paid the motion
OSe % % s1, .sas. Ss Tn hi as%
ABIDE
DrMURRIR-AvERNEST oF ACT or INCORPORATION
WHEN YECrssARY.
The Shoe Leather Bank sgt Augustus j. Brown ct
IsGRAHAM, J.-Tbe plaintiffs a eorporstion under
out the title aud date of the sct under which w ns
defendant osmg upon me Gouas s of ,ob..sns thai
appears the complaint that the Plainiu mas nov Ts 60
pip Ii. Bank Of ws,ervle Be,rer (l3 Howard Pr Rep
y7o Judge Enor held ths DO such sverment a. s W.
The complaint refers various cases under tne itpsI "
m OF practice well under present Coae sasns nn
"w. Th 9 R.nS of Lowyie ,g, Edward, l Howard Pr r
2s It was held by Mr. Justice Hubbard ths sens.
that the complaint DID no. CONTAIN M oh .ss the eorprr
ton dis the act Of ncoPors.Sp IN BON S ..pss
bed that the objection be specially taken 70 me
The only cse conflicting with decisions ms: y M
ce Mitchell bs5 that bank suing under ihe B...I 80, L
complaint the act and date oil H' pA'"s' ~
In "a. BspI 81 HsSsS. at. wcihsm Qs. Howard S7. M
rule Su, q s se aRe'ED: : .d d a S.t q
.st EdxMd'. to be applied the amp. DSe..J
the .n.-s tisl however .b Court q Appss IN h,1s
.ied S.t~ssn h,.s oonricas os.e Sy ncdns eoaI.
zion need not prove i,s existence uHess s AL
1 ii
Detd hot be stated in Tie complains; because well se;te
th. u.del the Code the plaintiff his Complains
Any fAct Lot 20 b. triA Tue s&s
pont expressly decided In Kennedy AT, Coor - Dsrb,
H. 60 luDdean9 the Genera Term this Dis-.e; have
/ alto ~ held.
think therefore, the plaintiff entitled Judgment ksssa
granted.
DECISIONS.
Thomas Morrison agt Isssc jacobs - Motion
granted payment Of $40 and dbureen,s since
| fault
Before Justice DAVIES
THE ELLA BURNS CAsE.
In re The Petition of Francis Nhten.
Mr.. Cook ard DR.. Whiting examined a. wit
pe..sthe latter for the pupose Of showing the
phy.ia capacity A Ella through her studies and per-
Mr A.buesd summed he for ;hs sher II. said this
have this child pl.csd In he custody Of s
.bsr AND tsten from srsnfer who claimed 20 bold IL
- an poeu,ue Of apprenticeship executed in Ohio BE
a INV nat II Law allowed her retain custody Of the
Sns had fortified oil claim l. She he'd failed
Zach 4 rs,rsct father She had sought 10 oeeste The
y.y p.ne Of child she called E her o~n ehd and before
| IN, public she named IL as such ,,t, Il,
M Ashrnead read Is: Of points u winch DC urged ne
| f.,bsr, r,sht 10 the custody al his child , ~
AZ, Iarscue 70. Burns addressed the Conr he COO