, 1864-01-20
LAW INTELLIGENCE.


;ect of the dehatc althour1, It aumetir,rs
as il counsel were disgusting the TWO motions at
the same umc.
Tie point 10 which the discussion was pr1nci-
pally directed, was that OF jnrisalction,-whether
conrts nj ehsnrr,,- had arer nndcrtatan ~ tnto-.
s.s-.S -. 80 .rr. 1He. aAe. ~ .ut1.
icst IN tne manner prayed LOT oy counsel TOT COM
anthority Of he conrt eon be- sna.,nea a % bv the M
rccccn1,cd md snc,cnt .ns-,n, .s,traa that 49,,
t'o.0 1seosn'eu "a0 Ane!eu. laA1' nisas tnal ean
aug ana " ~on1 . s.n, mus. Dc msoo 10 sing, at1ne
In which the doctrine of his venerable ne,cnt had
1.ce .nfnrrcd 1r Jnnnc.,or In ~. ,,r.-so ~ ~ r..
cree Of specified performance. To prosfde. the
court with fttin. precedent, Er. Peabody for the
complainant introduced the well known ca4e Of
Lamley Fs. wagner: ..-,
That case was IN lis general features, and in the
nature Of eonplainans'a petition precisely similar
1., ~ u,s 'no unus4 soas''etaaou. 1sS p'aln1a'
Lu1nley, the great London manager and imprcssa-
rio, had engaged the Prima Donna, Madl.e. Joa-
nhtna aenee 70 s'as II aet Majesty thea1fe 'or
certain specified time, aud she had also agreed
during the same time. not to sin; at any theatre
public or private, without permission from Lum.
fev. The ladY npon her arT1Tai in London. syas
By aa osf 9f sgesd sy tq aba9qoa
Coycnt Garden. Lun1oF lied hIs iii aeaIn It her
moi to comnei snecific nersnrrancc IF the cGn.
5ss 5qt iSssse ha hsf o rs;e1qeS e.
esIop sqI a o. tae SnS M
quotations from tue language Of the Lord chancel.
.sThe cncsremeiit ia nsrforr7, three months At
one thcaief, nnFt nceessanly exclude INC right to
4s ns 1t on?seF he thsste :;
,enr7ne1tinr her to s,nn hrt sba f,s RI csnee ~ ~
ssmpiainf IT comnei hrr to absain from ths con.
mission Of IN act Which shc h1e boand herself not
sacenent @ @ A'9 A'''' e'''' A'f 10 'u'A'' H'' e'1'
1n fhe course of the a;scnssfou the Conrt remark,
Was a1r..ady eYerntI far n rarenant tn ehstsin
% enme narttcnisr act nr thinr RE f,nn,t 1nieht
enmnei II iniunction m odhercnce s 10 tc cnn4act
4 f. RS ri: sho I'd 5sss'yed ths
tou.t also eTnTsssed = donbt whefher erfn Il X Il
we're poesibla b. iniunction or a errce n snrc,f1c
nerfo1rnance, fn rnnnnI " ths gaSenI-
an1s tn excen.e the ieW4r nj she ro,.rssf r.
would Ee rcasonabic to c1nect rom fharn nn13er
The cs1c1m.tanees such m Execution Of It's spsrt
~ wonId Iend eIthcr 10 the nrft ri thc nat0fr ~
he eIlcht Of The spectsinfs rhe ioirt i1;Iaca Il
intimated tLat it wopId not in the canarity of
SPECTATOR expect to derive much pleasure 81 aase.
compelled to dance by decree f9T sncci1c psr,
fot1nancc or By an Injunction which should i1adI.
Icctly haHe inc effect OF snch Decree We viii here
Iss Homssel, . E, .n1. "as cunseEso oa al al
neI ~ dccTee. i1efenians tn norf11rn tbe a,rua.
i've nsrt n Tia cnntrsct. nIthnnrh Il ,n,oS,
rom rar"ins 1nr ...rHa IT. ~ r. t,i,ht H.
| djrert]F haTe The ef;ref NJ sneh' n 5ecrce
Courssl ior both n!a;ntiff and de:endan:
H. n,nt y, nr .n
naricniarly ia fie hr7nrnrn,s nnf1Enn n Chsnee1
ior Wclwofth, given IN ihc cele5ra,ed ease ofDe
eur professional readers wao hare nerer paTased
oi iir5,S ns a. Ens shmsn would az ot Soxln:
Unless 1t he tho opinion Of Judge Brun In the case
notains.that way to be compared With i; The
case was followed BY brief eommeataries on the
bill and newer counsel for the defendant denyiag
that & !hc allegations, Of the hill were sGalsient
sor The reason that The bill id not aiesc that de-
eo@piaipaniior xhats7er damages hs might sut5ef
annre at law. Counsel for The de'encc also alleged
1hat tae answer sst up matte, ": Of oral per
mir sion given TO the defendants to leave his en-
E;oS1ent az coon a. taey pleased, Which was IL
discharge Of their obligations under the contract,
@ ind "ss sae1ens re1ly to me allegations 81 the
'hg malter % unaeT advisemeHt t,l a. this o.nng
case OF H1mrod W. Boyle WIS on trial.
LUIS ea,1 ssem ont o. IEc f:e'a INC pt'ee
oo5'nE tnc Aast nonths u lSS. ainlIou eoutlaes-
Cd With Hoss to furnish hir about fos:y.slx ton tons
q fen FefE from 2e9gt the 1st 9f osto9e s
-
10 nearly quite my dollars ton: md about the
a1{ ~ more:
which it appeared evident that r!aia.iI Eas dcs.
tined 70 recover to the extent Of about four hun
SUPERIOR coun7-Bsjors Chief .Ivstiee John Il
UIteon. ChG1ceyv.
1cSa- stan,poiiati vs., Stevens ct a. Default OF
Williams and Easioa,
1x ;1.pp si;f,;.s,fp "a oaoefao' ae'efreo 10 Aas1ee
Go Hardy 7s. Gibbs ct nl. Set for hearing 9 at
next month.
t1 s.,tt 'e' " "naet' oe& 'o' "ca1tas oo
Eejt1x Eea. Fan Hzonins. .7uage. Common
Ldt1:
sLJ.eraan e. A. Fs. ha11ctt ct a. Dismissed
a. teMEm,tb euEs.m 70 smith Nation for continuance
&C.. ovcT1ulod.
+ 6sc-EaMe ". C1alk ct nj. Same order.
soI,.s es H. ge' Aee'et e1 81. Aosion
1sn-johpson vs. Carter. Verdict for p1a1ntiE.
Motion for new trial By defendant,
Ss1-MM ,MMey vs. game Same proceeding.
Rsfo+s Ior + r. = fz,., .E,,ao~ fs,,,,no,
LGH.
1a1e-Hond "a. lawrence ct al.-Leave to amend
pissac e. h'ssao'S.. T1'n Bao,, E. 1,ayh.. =, r. -
amcrd aiternattye Wit. - "@' 14S'''~ ~
C.ncEIr Cot-Rr.-Uefore Hon. E. s. Williams.
Judge Common Ld1c.
y 3fa oockeil-bacon et al Vs. sweet ct AL
- Ettnnnr,a 1sto-. Hon F. Tim 1,,.>.o
.yndEe.
:sIs-reople vs. Mi>le-Reinstatcd on trial
docket:
sc2a 5aas ~: 10. s1nn e. i1s entesea ans9
.trm ~ s~V' '0A -AAo @ffeoA"A1'o ~ Ae~'
5 (Chance.y) )-Benton 70. Bcnton.-Dcfendant
ordered to chow cnuEe BY the 1st day OF ofnc1ttesm
Ehy On attachment should not be Issued against
-'A''
SMALL Pox-OuR PEST HoUsE.-The dis
tuss:on IL the Common Council Of Monday even
ing lae, on the sanitary condition Of the city and
the ireplHcient means afforded in the pest-house
for tte treatment of those suffering from conta-
ffous diseases. has probably been eaectua1 in
st,1nu1atinr the authorities to sense of the duty
thav o1.e ~ tbe nrh1,c We ara not Of those who
he1icre th,t there ia ANYTHING very unusual In the
e-hsh,.., ~ s,n.,,-no1- at tbIs fnncture We hnve