New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-08-15

The Conrt-UTder the decisions of The General
Term Of this District shall feel bound TO dsmiss the
application. ttttta $3.50
Mr.. ADderson-I desired hat the decision of the
Court might be placed thst gromd because Il was
not the intention Of the Corporation Cnpss 70 present
BE s c e any Yss e ss sa,g Ts cn %
is tine enough for this when the matter Is before Dc
andi ing officer Tie Question whittier any tax payer
could review a. ID every subject coming up 6ef,se
the CITY IL Of paramount Importance, bscsnse II that u
90 il would be al expense to the city Of New York of
Mr.. Cbatfe h-Does the Court intend 70 dispose Of
both branches Of the case -.
The Court-It will be time enough 10 apply for an
Injunction against the Comptroller aner inc resolution
has passed.
Mr. CharSeld-And hope It never will be.
Mr.. Anderson did not ask for costs, and the Court
dismissed the application without costs.
SUPREME CoURr-CHAxBxns a. Before Justice
SUTHERLAND
DECISIONS
In re- petition of Samuel Wilkenson, Receiver OF
Hepdrck Hudson Fire Insurance comp4ny-ReSsred 70 b.
In the matter Of the Hendrick Hudson Fire Insur-
company-order to show cause granted without any
Charles Echele sgt Anna Eichele.--Report Of
Referee confirmed judgment Of divorce granted
Hull agt. HulL-Appicstion for leave TO amend tho
end complaint making the ~, and niece, e
the estate might descend them Motion granted wihess
Thomas sgt. Thomas. Motion for extra allowance.
Allowed in part
SUIT FOR RENT
, . Eagleson sgL suydam.
Application to a ,eiver for rent alleged 10 have
improperly collected BY him. Pursuant 70 spulaicn
the parties In the suit In which speonted,
order entered which the should
al which might become due and intending April s
the into possession and receve al the
after rents Certain rents for the premises question wers BY
sSt Ct ts s q S had y S
stipulation The question TO whom the
May payable The Receiver alleged be ensiksd 70
expressly given 10 defendant.
In Opposition contended th,t such eonstructon was
contrary intention Of the parties and afdav read
made by that suit he agnor Of the plsnf
herein IN which he stated under the upposon
titled such rents he has been at consdes5s exenss
furnishing stesmpower for the tenants In the factory ron
would have consented to such stipulation
incurred such expense any other terms Decision reserved
FRAUD SUFFICIENT TO DISSOLVE PARTNERSHIP.
Moses S. Friend at. Samuel II. Black
By the decree recently settled in this action before
Justice Sutherland appears that the suit vas brought to as
copsrnershp then existing under the hn name OF
firm were carving business secIotyping the City
of NewYork the defendant Black being the operator and
the plaintiff Fend contributing most capital that daf:
ing the night 9Th June last the defendant secretly removed
the the firm, consisting OF valuable silver
and other The City Of Newark but which found BY
NewYork detective, and brought back In the time
receiver appointed this action aud the stock placed his
Court held that the frsud the defendant in removing
secreting the property sufficient for doyng the
parerhp that the defendant should pay the costs OF the
action personally because his fraudulent conduct partner
ILLEGAL CONVICTIONS IN THE SESSIONS.
In re. James Devfne.
Petitioner was convicted of grand larceny in tho
Court Special Sessions before Justices Steers and Qnacken
bush His counsel appealed for witt Of ceorsh and hsseas
Illegal The require that three magistrates shall cit 1t
Special Sessions and Is therefore contended that conviction
by two is void The writ granted
Maynard Stuyvesant for petitioner