New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-06-09
LAW LVTELLIGEIVCE
SUPERIOR COURT-sPEcIAL TERn--JuSE sBcforc justice
WooDRggF.

SUPERIOR CouRT-spEciAL TERn-JcSE s-Bcforc Justice
WOODRUFF
THE JOHNSON DIVORCE CASE.
Johnson ar. johnson.
This seems 10 excite great interest," tne CONT
roo being lied with spectators whom ladies' The
examination Of MIS- showed that she boarded Abns
donquare that lime the health Of plaintiff was no. god
wa. equeny in the Of the plaintiff during the day add
evenings defendant Yves there when witness was wi'I 1
BOARDED with them e ScysaSe ss, wsss: yss o Jam
tin part Of the fuel was pucbss,d BY w'nss, and part
y I'D as AS s. 'ey s's5'is
sbot middle Of January 1885, often in TIE room Of
eo S pi to her room part time defendant il
plaintiff. ss.s ssss address ss. S s Shs %
hotel the plaintiff us.s required the attendance OF
Gyn ,ssc ssnd.S, on Of Nose
but lie accompanied pan'in 70 bei Showscse psn'n
I rdon never accompanied by defendant tho
table he only there on the sabbath plaintiff was boarding.
that suyDg said defendant about paying the de-
endsn prohibited wie,s from whiting her daughter in Murray
street with her brother her daughter and children
defendants the tims defendant at that time called
witness .eyeIs bad names which she insisted to be excused
her, wps, there 70 %.ss her ssDd s Cd
witness. lace tore gloves injured her which had
not been well SINCE and then turned witness out Of doors
was yssr old did how old defendant had been
siri,d sce defendant got acquainted with pniih Of wit
in nedinteIy TO this city knew Hobart cousin to wit
ness dad knew Of no trouble between The ps,a m tine
tine defendant had no quarrel With wae Til los J,,s5
ss the hs the " Murray ta as'
ssg there was quite scu,e whe boarding at Abingdon
square and at the hotel did not hear pla'nn request
defendant 10 the public table, johnson wa man 10
business never call Der mothers before the
aeas In Munay street witness was on terms OF kndne wtI
JoLnsn eI shown Til. body of th. letter Ia the hand
writing the brother Of witDess, aud signed oy her Ibis letter
agree continuance settlement sd. By M Bell law
ye with the defendant 10 settle this suit Mr. Bel was EN-
H. Notion proposed to introduce the plaintiff as witness
1he Cont said he could not be allowed to testify.
ME- Sarah son testified that she boarding house
keeper knew the parties when they boarded at her house In
Nulay street In 1851; had persoa kno sedge Of any Ill
Of the defendant to psn,in haa frequent converse
Cn ith defendant relative to the difficulties with his wie
TluaL 1skh-JusK 81 elore Justice bOswoRTH.
QUESTION: ArFEc1IsG SALES BY SAMPLE OF GOODS
IL BOND.
Rowe sgt. Burdick.
This action to recover the price of fty-three
casks OF brandy sold by plaintiff TO defendant In APRIL 1853
he defense the brandy Inferior TO the sample
stisl IL from he vieuce that the brandy sold
81 az gallon that Il was in bond' At The time and that
yer,d 10 de nda snta sent several times for .eeoent
the BILL Which the defendant delayed the ground int be
ne End preferred giving note till nearly two months after
the sale ground that the brandy inferior
Meantin. bl andy had fallen ~ cen. IN pfice
alter being sued oefendi rendered buck o plaintiff the Gus
tom permitsp which refused Shortly after the
SALE def ndau withdrew three casks Of brandy from the ware
both sides a. the qualify 81 the br.ndy. winch OF the
dardans witIess.s testify ing that Though
the Cogpac band. Of Utad and oIhrrs bran
france aud familiar with the bTandies this house ana
generally with the manufacture Of French brandis the details
The oTi charged tie jury matter Of law that the sale
conditional one depending upon the brandy corresponding
Tine and submitted the facts OF the them
upon the evidence without comment - ~ .
The Jury found verdict for the plaintiff for Sala 49, the fn
sper and plaintiff Sanford and Emerson and Joseph
J.. " bite tor defendant