New-York daily tribune., 1865-11-24

It Is rs time we have heard Of statute being repealed
OF lmpsFed by previous statute. Bat what Il not isss
the previous and repeating statute referred to by
counsel directed entirely dihegen, parties having no con
ncetiyh whatever with the parties now before tae Cont
But TIE Objection is well for other ana
~ doe' not slew why there Is money In The Qreeh
sgt tLe Iusiees Of Juon roads o. b. 800 an Alternative
road they had laid OG the grounds Of the ror They
returned to tie wnt chat :hey had funds. 1ais return wa
on oon fnaed end peTemptory wTt ordered The case
again came up motion to asids the peremp.oy nania
mu' TAe court Dsnmsn c. j. .ad: IT seem. to me that
TIE want OF iunds not fn point Of law to the wr
Though the duty which the defendants rad to d'harge was
pe,c dgy does not appear in tho return why they ere
Gale Duvdson's Report 2i3 Coeridse J.. ,ad 'I
a the duty Of the trustees to make proper fences as to
Pater,cn and Williams J. J. concuued. See also Tapping
on igsnt1na' 60 Law Library, 4J5 m, p. Ha
reIbe bus acopcusiop Of the respondents mind lie
does not tel u. why they wefeuot applicable The allegation
'hs ca. b, saying that where's wa, hi, day Sc,
appropriate such moneys ye, be ha, neglected to do so
lecei aui paid nio tie Te,sury Thi, IA not denied apd
therefore stands admitted II 10: toTo now it his fault
4 10 that this money which he tsc,ly admits was
levied collected and pai into the Treasury, has been paid 70
tts money levied collected and paid into the Trees
TO for the services Of the Deputy Tx Com.oner
sl claimants II e Ieaior he the riehiiul csimnnt what
yn' 70 the repondni tlt 10 Ia, pad I out e the
wIogsii claimant! II ,ae Festo' De 10; the sul claim
Nothing eeare ihan that the respondent can show no
The Oleen =. Eastern Couriies Railway Co.. 40 Ad & El
S3l: Tapping on MAUD ~. P 80
| The Count reserved ~ deison
J. L Niimi aad Alr. omyth or realtors. Mr C. TiuI
for pas sonseEt.
CONFLICT or JURISDICTION,
The People fti Carey, Sc.
In this case, OF which full report has been here
toore given, nyoynr the question ofhow ag commiimer
or eone4r' by the Cont o. Common rea, can be lo1sed
While expressing doubt. TO whether commitmen fr con-
tempt for paving ry" OF money was valid decided
5lf stafford ior tue pri.ongr Mr Albert Mathews and NJ
oIsrnAI Tgaz-Noy 23-Bcfore Justice, lseR.uAu
LFSSRD and hARsA9D.
| WITS OF EHRoR
william W spClnmsn ag- the People.
/ This was M appeal from conviction OF the plain
~ ia cfr1I ir e5efz uei of monys Hom hs emPloyer
TIE points lrs1ei thai che oaease niie ou ~ 4
evidence va, tHpy te'nin, Of moneys ana NJ ei.hi.
ruied the objection. and l'lflnei the conviction
Mf Hal, DusnctAt,oFney. tx Judge S'uar! for tie
Eugene Hollywood at; The People.
Tie rslrhf n rof " ined ahl canycitd lnte' 81 -. ~
90 i. MI. proof wa IL, he H., a. ST. Basey wish
,ra, k h ui, -, ba, rni..s4 t.a s'ask MF.
ra..ey The c'au.e fo to 7ain.a oa te e'rld ttat
-nryticn cau.t Doe bad urdef such N indictment On"
rtn'" under which tA' ia nr' "e' lo'na u".Hs Y,A,
-rt 90 b. s'fc .onri and ine oaen'o committed pe 1s
d.-ersri 90. iaroae .-r- al ci 81 Yl' I "a. 90
!. % lil. D-c. Attorney. EKJudge s.s,fi Tor paiAih
Tur miRIrosA CASE.
4 TIE aprea' o te Mnp'sl couran, tom the order o.
Joss. sll % Special '-m 4p olfiuf Receiver n the
ro4fsty s'-t'. yys.eri'y ass d o. Ctn-EI Term
| De. ... ..t reseTy,d
/ Join - Eana. Nr p,ln..G wH, ". Evarts oppo'oi.
TIN ExANISATIoy or LAW STUDENTS.
n Con fte~ ou tlaua5u have frporfrd fiyorlby IN
he rs.e, ~ - arp for adni.oa 70 the aar %
lft the Commute, character also frPor, fivefiby
sUrEgioR coJRT-TRAL rfaS-Soyi sl-Be'ose jus
n.e btETr.
TIE ST oS1 DIVORCE casE-uIE nPNNEIISC
| o. IiIE JJET-JPwARJ5 or TH .STT JURORS
E.IcTED-A WHOLE DAY CONSUMED II Oh
/. 4AIsIaG a JURY.
Peter Il. strong st MARY strong.
| Tho Court-roolu this morning was ~ II o'clock
a ed viii .peca'o drown t,fe by ihe interest ~t,f 'bi'
-. ~ ,rIiri., g,I,i.. III. ps i,.G,r.t pr.seu,
viii hi..ola,e Jadss Hoffman, aad Nr Henry T. Cram
The -ornssl for th. defense Nr. Graham. ar.
K-Keou an 81 E. T. Gerry leaiesiion, q The pa''
have besu already spread b-o-e the public ~ corieab
Jon. .h. TIE originally brought 30 the sprcii Iel,
bot ue IT, Ir. oi4i bsyr been seai down Tor fial
% ihe rI ieDn iss tie P-Po's Of L'Ss 'hea passed Oh
o. g. c,'as o.. :le case Of Peter r. Strong ag MaTyE
answsr,i fri 10 ~ proceeded % imlauar the jay.
Bo1fs pr1c-,tilg in t.e calling % Juror. ar Scheon
of Nfs sro aud stated 'ai n hs Intended 10 cha.
gne the Juror fr cause woad rcqus, the Court 10
,tr tlstl, .nef AZ dau made By tho aro' Il he com
rI-ncsnst o Le Got aie lr tls cause, but tAli
.s,t i.oT i.itlt tce,gscil.y ss0ri To- tl, action.
TIE C,. agreeing 20 ts eurrcte ceis called Frederick
" Dmlrr DO to - ll;orv ho. bong ~ m 9u m r'ir dire
t.l lis, d. tHew nothing this case had formed
OPINION l erpre,,ed HE therefore TOOK hs seat
T net ia.or ..d had aeard ani read Of the arl
had formed and expressed ~ OPINION
ir Cram co1nisi ,ls p..ia-I Ito opinion formed
q W4.tac opinion ,i upr..ian Rom reading the nsw..
psprf,i u Wt hut have lfgo'tfa what u think
/ ] trrlossed &. q, some one; sn H1t .urc.
@. j, there anything IA be mpfe.son you have formed
t.t would prevent giving fair oniUn 'lr "yideac,
This question e,ed to tli long argument h.d a' 10
wht,hsl that question wl. admisible.
The Couu led where there wa' hTel im9r'l'on on a
uefsJa nd be wps ro' Of cOlIr adui,sIr, but where 70
re,a- inpres'on leaving no tree on the nnd
! this td not iuyliiair tno person q" juror
The DEF, ndar. then chh eured to the favor and MI Luther
| Il. nsrsh and Mr. Carter were sworn a. trirEs.
Tie Juror stated that h- nd read the papers every day
matter OF news, but had DO prc'et IMPRESSION
dors ccorcl What be- rc.d doe NOT flou tie result
Of Indictment meant TO- say by ha'il; 'on'd an impre'
sion thu, lie Trobah'y w-en b. rei the lprs, fpfc % nn
opinion about what he roai 10 whoever Sa hy thinks hs
r-.d about scsrfr years a5oi cdNt tell whether
Li. in,rre, on sn, in favor of tire toe
Crosst laulued-liis mprcsson wond not prevent hil
ffom .iyiry o ipf verdict ou th- evidence"
M GrihAn hcle rsfrt lie objection undrr tie care oi
,io 1 coai not 1eueu,-r Il, wa. espcci,lv objection.
ls ala skei rciemp3ry direction 10 tho tt,rs tha the
juror no. competent. 80, .
bias tor either panty and the opinion he had formed woad no.
| iri ueuce han in hnding vefdc.
NJ cks1n then asked The rrfs to civ" them 'uch ror
a. they wound desire u their cases Ia li, the
dancer that is DID might Oh Leai tue case
Mr Gam arsued thur TO, Necessary tha' the juror
should not have had bat that he should b. indst'
irfent between TIE paitcs.
| Nj Anthon replied
The Court charged tia, tho question before them was
whether the jlIor stood indifferent or not Exception -
the Judges rriu'a to rule as wa. requested by MI
The rer, foqnd hat the Iurorwa indifferent Tho defense
| challenged him peIrmpton.Y.
| The next Juror was ihen called.
Nj Grnhsn- Have yoa formed expressed opinion Of
the guilt O tho FaiAh OF procurement o oF
conniyincr at 60 t'r;ei alue.y oi y, VtrnH.h.