New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-11-21
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SUPREME COURT-risCurr Nov to--besore 'ssses@
DARWIN SMITH.
raw-op IpONISsORY NOTES.

DARWIN SMITH.
Law OF IIOMISs0RY NOTES.
1 Frederick w. Renlrr az. James g. Jewst ana otmrA
This was an action on . promlsiory roIe ion
al TT 90 made by the defendanh to the
.n. act no was sf The defendants agrerd with IN. pslno
on Joint account TO Mstsmoros, AMI 70 en-
able him procure the good, to be shppeo upe
seyeeneut that the notes should when due, b. renewed
aud not drmsud-d until the retIrDs of the '~uu
able the defendants uIeet them. great deh 9 '"
given rrpve to the inception OF the notes aho LIB
The case is not vet concud.d
GgssRAL TsRs-Noy. 2o.-befors justices iSSRAhS ans
| LEONARD
! FRAUDULENT ASSESSMENTS.
This was an appeal ION an order confirming an
tnen. on property Ia Egi,h', from the rn ay"
to the East River The petition was made By An'hony
Hoor 10 he relieved from the assessment tho g5nnd tnS
the contract was ir,uduonty given the highest bidder zoe
usliug the street The Corporation clam that the asse
uient Iegaiized by Subsequent Legislature
c. ssneRs-Nov 2O-BefOre Justice CLEREE.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
Rraney sgf. Perrue aud oilers.
This was II Dtioa in two cases by the dofendanm
TO dissolve an il sgans, Mr.. Edfire United setes
sSr Of money doc hm nom the Government and counter
motion by tie plant q, TO punish Perne for cop'smp G
repeatedly violating the ijunc'i1n. The plaintiffs urnshrd
10 the defendant engines for the gnnboas lrina asd
Maria and obtained Judgment asan,. iu end now seek "
the on Of Their udtns OUT Of the slL que 10" No
These suns are claimed by the Marine Bank under a''ig.
tsus to Fish OF trr oiorr EIDE before ana
sone since the Injunction The puth cnrd that by these
assignment, since the gjueton aTser amount nan ne
H"I ond tha, therefor, the Injunction should be dir
solved and hat Prrine should b. pun shed for s coniems
a cont ming violate IT, snd that hne should be imposed
the suem. of p ainns jids lie ur'her conrnded
that the Bank not being ened' could "et Sppy on ..s
notion specially since 1t hal been party 10 the deends
Tbc fer the naval officer appeared TO resist any
ton aganst him the grcnuI of want Of lursdc'ion
Tie Cour, took the papers and reserved is aecisi9Y
T.. e. Robinfon and II. A. Cram for plaintiffs; Watson q
Stono Tor tue Marine Bank o. Bliss IT, Tor deenah>
Before Justice CLsRKB-
DECISIONS.
Henry Forstrick agt. Henry Oidfcld. Motion
denied wi'hou, cost. .
Alfred h'r'haw ast Benz ~ Frel:sa1cas J sett'sdi AZ
:. C. Caldwell ~ Potter J. Gess-Attachneht dNcha'ged
Geo Grsf ag'. Rosse Z. Grss.-Report confirmed ard
jcd,rnrn, OF vorce granted.
Amos Mess az, An,hoEc Armour ct. al-sotiOu denied
Eeu Wh.tngl am as.. John Mccorniek.-sioon granted
on payment Of = 10 costs md Of tnr disou sruen,: or
ld,uru and giving bond with two slree' N d'uD's
the amour. Of The Judgment TO BE- approved &C ,,,
Charles l.. Anthony s;t benona ilq~an e 1t ~.
BAKER -Wr,, di missed lie Roy NJ WHEY agt George W.
70 dehsrse ord.i Of arrest oeea
defend M discharged opnionD Eliza Meyer sg Das
irl Nyes.-Ilepsn confirmed and judgment OF divorce
SPsSI,L TrHx-Nov eo-Before Jnsco SUTHERLAND.
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF PRACTICE.
Armand Peugnet sg, Caroline L. Phelps.
This case was reported quite fully on the notion
nAds heretofore tor aimony The Gaze cane up today on tns
eedar "ner tie counsel Si ~, on ~. o,Ssr
denying nnouy. bnt had not been able to perfect m srpea
owing 10 plaintiffs a tile the original order that mean
while te plaintiff without fEda procure her witnssses
that drTd 70 witnesses irom huw ana var
pre' IL the West to prove the honreaieace Oh 'ns
fhe counsel was willing sdmit that the plaintiff bad
hen al MgsuAce A. and wss now Vice Consu 1t Cincp-
nat, but they would slow tn, he had room in bis fath,
house during I'll thar time, aud a. they coneided the dernf
ant was wife o. tho plsini. they woui shpues
10 adni, her evidence That this rariage wa, nike mn,
sioue hanging around the neck OF the young pann aud INN
the should be decided way or other a once
Counsel 1r defrrdiut claimed that under the recent Ia
gih d-ci the question OF rejtuce was ereno az
s S d w c aE Of con1@p, in T.m.yrs
could be enforced and that this should especially prevs1
ou- through whom the original oaeuso occurred. x
s r Dss sp,horne aud Fos.rty ioe plain.
tH. A. II. Hitchcock for defendant.
Trust ACT. Trust.
In this case q motion was made for new thai on
elss made Mr Byrne defendant agreed for new trs
the ground Of nslu ns b. ne Judge IN rkclaeiLs ne
trimCny Of tho ,.re's VINO eliea 81 se an5 IN .s
cucrg Mr. Trus;s testimony Tor want o. belief in .
so be ,sue a toe II changed
old law rule and that under tbs Conto1oo
partcasf b-rt want Of belief OF person, WA no s0oaA
Tue Court oyeuei the motion, on the ground that no a.
c-poH. bad bees taken 20 tue judges 'us at tue me- 'Sa
that on case made Wilton, exceptions. nohing could D.
cues zion whether the verde. was against
Mr Byrns ior the motion. mr. s'nEay opposed.
APPEARASCE IN Az ACTION.
Frederick O. ROPES Gg ID. Livingston and sineoe
Draper
This case being called on, the counsel LOT Tue 10
PENDANTS ra,,d question that the principal dfrudayt
Liyinlsfon he'd been served with summons in tia
scon and being In siates son bsdneyr ape red IN
the ction Thus. other DE- rdsnt but incdently
involved. the qu-tion bsne mercy IS TO whether certain
clmrd by Livingston Hni In Possession Of the Do
PENDANT spout BE- applied the plaintiff claim the
should b. brought 70 tc until the defendant Sngstos
had been brought IN. Plaintiffs counsel argued that motion
in the rryu-d by the opposite ooans- behalf
o. The dcrdi aud that he counsel hal admitted seryce
a. council thus thoroughly deriving the planih
On The snrauce Of COUNSEL that be had intended to
appeal bat for al defendant Drarc the Court decided that
consider the matters ut appearances Tor Liy
,.on but would the generally until he could
br ttrg,d.
SUPERIOR COURT-SPEcIAL rFVX-NoT 20.-Before Jss
uce EcDE2r.OA.
DECISIONS.
Maglalena Heller, by her guardian, &C., Ggt-