New-York daily tribune., 1865-11-16
LAW INTRLLSGENCR.
SUPREME C0URT-GEsERsL TpRr-Kov l5-Before
Justices lsoRAHAn LRoSARp and BsRxARp.
UsURY WHEN A DEFENSE 10 A NUTY.

UsUEY wHEN A DEFENSE 10 A SoTE.
| eap9e Campbell agt. Abran X. Wclch.
In this Action, which was on promissory note
the defense Of osury was set and 1t was proved tbr, the
plaintiff bought the note Of the payees The
plaintiff however testified that the psyee Of whom he bought
the note represented business paper The Court charged
that the note sold to the plaintiff the representation
that was business paper then the defense OF usuy viii not
The jury rendered verdict for the plaintiff and the defend
ant appealed on the ground Of error In the charge
The Cou ssned new trial or the ground that this was
mdirecton, nothing short Of such representations by the
would act estoppe him. to make the
note invalid for uury in the hands the payee valid against
Mr. jenkins for plntiG. Van Antwerp james for defend
ant.
TRIAL TKRs-Nov l5.-Before Justice GARuS
The case of Strong agt. Strong was called yester-
day morning and tho parties answered ready but owing to
he continuance Of the case reported yesterday nothing was
done. The continues at tho head Of the calendar.
SPECIAL TRRs-Nov. l5-BefoTe Justice SUTHERLAND.
coNTBACIs FOR sERyIcEs-sATIsFAcIIos.
John &. Goodiiige aTt The LoriilHid Insurance Co.
This case arose out of the following circum-
stances; The plaintiff agreed with the defendants to establish
Of $1,000 ond five per cent on the net profits such
business TO be computed at e end Of every ce year July
between himself aud the President Of the Company that his
engagement noud terminate the lat day Of February aud
immediately aef made Arrangements with another Company
The Committee OF the Directors thereupon passed resou'
on cen,une him and solving not to pay him anything bat
the h1ed salary The pnn'h appeared before them 70 me
explanations aud received the salary then due him. He now
brings action to compel them account with him for the
vo per cent profits OF the business managed by him during
The defendants contend thai the agreement no. dis.
solved except by the resolution o The Committee which
tered into tie dissolution Of settlement aud that this
proved by the plaintiffs attendance the Board In
pansion ,nd his subsequent acceptance Of The part salary
The plaintiff contends that the agreement hnay on,
solved by the action Of tho President of the Company and
th bis subsequent appearance before the Board but tho
natural sciion OF honorable under undrsered censure
and h.t the payment the yed portion 0f his ssary could
not be considered bsr to his action or the remsinde
The Court sgreed with the deendint' aud d"ni'ed the
MI NJ b. Horie for plaintiff eI Judge Dean for defend
ants.
CIRcuIr-Noy. l5-Beiore Justice PgcKHAs
THB MARYLAND LOTTERY ACT.
Wism Mccain aud Others at Richard Franco and others
The action was brought Oh promlssOry notes IN
dorsed by France which the plaintiffs claimed they hat taken
In regular business way
The defendant In defense stated that during bis absence from
Baiimorehs partner hsd largely IN d-ht in their business
which lottery business snd that on his return srange
worth Of mad. in the firm and that they should
then dissolve prtuerhp That The papor for the dissolution
had 6ee made out ana both parties being sgn they
had Eope TO h Office where he France. signed the notes
which seized and carried Of by bis partner who never
signed the other papers that be had therefore published
notices dissolution warning al parties against taking the
notes OF the rm er the date Of dissolution, and that these
notes signed for the purpose OF settns certain matters
This il wa claimed wa. against the Maryland Act making
all contracts relating to lotteries void
The Court, however held that tbs bad not been
brought within the purpor Of the statute and directed yer
Mr r. Brown ior plaintiffs. eTRscorier Smith for de-
Before Justice =. DARWIN ssTn.
THR FRENCH CHt' RCH CASE.
The People e ri Laucbanten agt. La Costs.
In this suit which was dispute between nyal
claimants Of the Offices Of the Church the Court directed
verdict the panfs ding tha while they had made out
yira the Others lad not succeeded n showing
better e
Mil,r stoutenburrh Miller for Plaintiffs Brown. Hal
| L NsndeTpool ior drfrndAn;s
CHAxnEHs-Noy i5-Before Justice CLyEKr.
| THK EIGHTEENTH WARD NAEKET.
In tho application 30 the tomGon Council "a
compel them 10 Issue bonds for the Eighteenth ard
MNko,.
| This matter was argued yesterday, the rolators
tkins the ground that the a imperative .nd len nothn
for tho Common Council bua formal act and that without
their set Toe Controls could bonds which would
bird The cy and the respondents conendug thsi toe spp
cation should been mad the Controller sone and
tnand SINUS would not be to the Common Council purely
deiiberative body.
Aner argument Court took tho papers and rorved Ia
decision
Mr C. Brainerd for rriaors M Hleke, Tor responden,'
Before Justice LEONARD.
DECISION.
William ID. Ludlow agt. Chas. W. Hydriek.-
Motion Kantsd without oosts