The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1862-01-23
LRGAL REPORTs-wEDNEsDAY.


The Crystal P,ILIee held 10 hare been Real
Estate. - The Mayor, &C., ~. The Hamilton
we're stated in the SUS Of the 2lt. tn" action
W'u brought, will he remembered, D. recover
Rh,Oh oi the defendants, upon policy ofiusurAuce
issued by them upon the Crystal Palace.
Tie defence was, mainly, that the Crysta, Plare
building was personal property, belonging b. Nj.
John IA White, tie receiver, aud not real estate be-
longing 10 the city, and that the city thornore,hal
no standing In Court and could not maintain the
action Ia recover the insurance II was urged that
the action should have been brought ~ Mr.. Whit,
the receiver.
Under the instructions Of the Court, however, IN
respect b. the reality personality ~ the building
the Jury rendered verdict for the plaintit4i1r the
amount claimed.
4 Heavy Real Estate Con,rorerg- .I,reniah
Toulc rs Simpson T0ldn and I,GGS n. SMITH
In l,O2 Mary Clark devised 10 rgs ltlte in lands,
mostly under water situated In Chelsea In this city,
y Thomas u, CLARK and his children giving
life estate 10 CLARK, and, on lis death, yestlng tie
fee ia the children
The property lies between Gath and 18th streets,
embracing ~th, 9th and 10Th avenues and tho yl.u-
able water privileges On the North river situated
between those streets.
In 1915 tue Legislature authorized the sale f'the
lands, under the direction of tie Chancellor, which
sale Was subsequently made.
1t Is now claimed by the plaintiff that the sale was
MT Valid, and that the deieuiont7 have no title.
The defense is, that tho leieudents' lrant0rs tgtk
title nom the city, and that they filed In and nala
the hind and that they have held undistlrhel p.,-
:" sson Tor over twenty years, and that they are now
Ine suit Ia question II IN relation 10 but one lot,
h a." decision iu the above will affect al the rot
% u" property. The case g. 4 u On.
Hed'y Verdict in a Grim. Con. Clse.-LocAs
~. bertrand This An .rtiuu fHr .rImtual cone
ycrsNtlUu of the defendant with the paiutns wife,
The Jury now gave tie P.aintn Fcrd.st for $4,000.
Common Pleas.
An adultery DiUSrce Cas- Vim. F0,oisr rs
Eliza FOrler In this case each PARTY charges the
other with adultery and asks q diyurCe,-eagA also
deuyiu the charges preferred by tho other.
Several other actions Of the same nature hal been
commenced between the parties, and iH some way
disposed u before the present
supreme Cont.
The OidTolicc Cdses-7R. People or. rek HdH-
rdhdu ~. the Bodrd NJ Police In this case the
Jury i'uhd Tor ths defendants an the issues in
vowed, ana against The reator. still the relat0r,
t'aeI the it,lsion Of the Court az General Term In
Gorm"u's rase asked that percmptor-y ,uautamt,s
De- issued Tor the coinpuiuu Of the relief demanded
On the trial, the jury found that the relatnr hal
10 'hlld al ppihtmeut As a member Of Ina pnli,a
urce that the relator Withdrew from duty and dIs
claimed being member OF the force under tha ,avv
nance ~ the Common Council and acted under the
ordinance until the Sd of July, ls5T that, subse-
quently g. the organization Of the new Board, he
was employed for personal profit aud gain, in busi-
ness not connected with and inconsistent with the
duty OF policeman,
Jury finding for the defendant on the issues in
that case, that those facts constituted no defence
| and allowed peremptory nldnddmua.
That decision was made the law of this case and,
notwithstanding the verdict Of the jurya perempto-
I ry Wdnddmus ordered
In the case of Murphy, Peck & MCGUIRE against
Tue Bard VI Polise, the same order wa made,