New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-10-12

sale of the premises in Rye CO., but owing the doubts
purchaser refuses and cannot be compelled TO
The real question is whether under this win the children
t9e , ssah Interests in il aving naked power
hands Of the executors under which construction the deeds OF
execution Of the power in favor their grantees could be
PEELED whether the 'oOs the me nee sne pr
annuity which woad render s ~ toa and h hs
Under the former view the defendant Wesley would hold
smes Proves. by the deeds Of heirs and
the deed fraudulent az lhe
he youd he entitled the seventh james share
The complaint therefore asks for declaration Of the con
streton OF the will settlement OF the nights OF the
ties that James Provost be required JOIN as executor in
sale Of the premises and that the pSaen as n o
except James Proyosts and that all the
The defendants set up their that the sale
sae at fair price being really for value Of over " 800 in
cash and they deny all fraud or COLLISION in the execution OF
the deed claim that the fee did pass 10 the children
to through their deeds all the shares except that Of John
Provost which James p. conveyed TO him.
Evidence was taken show James p, down to very
day acted the view that the estate TO be distributed
Mr. Amos G. Hull and exJudge Cowles the Counsel for Mr.
w 's S SSTss s @ts@a r e
only to be exercised in ease OF emergency That no such eme
be exercised in rthence OF the previous voluntary convey
anees for value Of the heirs law who were the parties bene
hcialy interested In the execution Of the power
Exudge PerrepOnt behalf Of the heirs cOnended that
the case came literally within the decision of the Cont of APP
left conyeyabe interest in the hens aud means of
veyng dpong of the property except by the
CIRcrrr-Ocr ii-Before Air Justice DAVIS.
THE APrLEBY INSURANCE MBRoGLo- THE JURY TO BRING
IN SEALED VERDICT.
Leonard Appleby al The Femans Fund Insurance
Company e., -,
cusscd right of cabinet warehouse keepers keep articles
Of hazardous extra hazardous character without ytatng
their policy Mr. james w. Gerard for plaintiffs eoniending
that when business is insured policy all articles
necessary carry such business If the articles used
Of an hazardous extra hazardous character and cited
that the Mess Appebys policy covered risk Of cabinet
considered equal in both Mr. Gerard contended that
similar issue made in the celebrated Harper Insurance
Gerard now took in his ease and that the Harpers gained
their suit the grounds he Mr Gerard advancing
Testimony given showing that 1t necessary and Gus
keep all the articles that the defendants took excep
ton TO in this case in all cabinet warehouses.
Evidence read by M Eyarts show that the premiums
paid By Mest SaRiu Osgood the occupants of the upper
portion Of the building burned higher than those paid by
Mr. E,ari. asked the Court to dismiss the complaint the
ground Of the breach Of warranty he assumed the plaintiffs had
been guilty OF attempted show the eombustble ma
81 the articles used by the Messrs Sawn Osgood and
the very nature their business such under the agree
the policy between plaintiffs and defendants to render
that policy void
The Court stated that no matter what its individual opinion
in relation to this its hands tied and that by
direction OF the General Term the 90 the jury
sSsr lSs the aTy .@,nStav a ooWs " 'OD INC OOuf
"fhe Court viii have discharged m duty in this case when
the contract in dispute The General Term has ruled that by
the plaintiffs had the the whole OF
the building for merchandise II the plaintiffs had confined
themselves to that condition the policy would he adequate 10
the loss caused by the FIRE IL c0ntended by defendants
that the plaintiffs have violated their contract by the Of the
building for other purposes than those contemplated in the
Of these matersrof the nature Of the business cur
ned on, the articles used IN it-stll that
business from the nature Of II was prohibited the
plaintiffs responsible because they had consented that in
the building any portion Of was used for prohibited
about the matter the plaintiffs free TO make this contract
OF not but in making IL they became warrators they
whole building aud ts they boIud by their policy
and they allowed prohibited business IN the building or
been made the rate 81 premium the policy Cancelled they
must take the consequences The question whether the bust
The Court then read The policy issued to show that the plain
had bound themselves IN relation the nature Of the bust
ss 20 conceal ly,gs o rom n Iy anu ny, aI ~ 70 d
me defendants any change the occupancy Of the building
which would come within the prohibition 'aa.es Inc our.
business Of the MessTs Sawin OsgoOd aud said that TIE
point relation whether manuaeioy IN the
meaning OF policy issued II believe that chairs were
completion there think must conclude That manuae
tory existed there and IN consequence You mat IN" LOT @
Defendants On the other hand the plaintiffs contend
hot these parties we're simply Lsays 70 ,sat bSsi
We all know that dealers in furniture may keep articles
for In repairing their furniture &c and the policy sH
those articles incidental to the business bat when
articles Of mure nr' Systematically finished or pa, through
any rags OF manufacture the different and You
conc 70 that conclusion your verdict must be for the defend
But you find that these portions OF chairs were merely
time and articles the building simply In.
edenta iha, business you viii find for the plaintiff The
Harper case which has been cited by counsel turned upon
question necessary aduncis OF business insured
There be- doubt but that policy hsuring business
Of that business bu, this is not question Of that
hind H.. question n relation tho to aS Ss''I sns
matter what you may think Of the pediea@ent the
plaintiffs may find themselves in II this is decided against
Them and Io matter what our sympahies may be II Is my
duty inform Of the law in relation 10 this matter to an
ayIe this and what means and II your duN 70
say whether in your opinion this building nls used Tor bs
prohibited 10y the contract N short whether t
dispute business OF manufacturing certain articles OK
Whether simply storage business or one IN we1 ,e
parties carrying acted merely dealers IL You ma Tor
The paInif YOU viii bring in verdict for the full amount
claimed tlosD7 g. YOU find for the defendants you Will
The jury retired and instructed to bring in sealed
verdict this morning.
SUPREME C0URr-CHAsBERs-0cr ll-Beio.e MI justice
CLkRKE.
Risi0Hs.
George NJ. Mittnacht agt. August Newmart el al
Bail reduced to Becker eOo.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-SrrcAL TsDi-ocr 10
Before Judge BRADY
DECISIONS.
Leeds agt. Provet.-In this case there are no legal
questions judgment about which there can be any doubt
1be question Of fact determined upon conflicting evidence
nearly balanced think the Judgment would not be DISTURBED
by General Term and thai the deu, should not be opened
Morre sgt Cordes-Receiyer appointed nothing ~ofe OF
Austin sst Moyt-Mo,ion granted without costs.
Stevens agt Pcreersues presented adopted amendments
having been made defendants attorney to appear and settle
Hardnan sg Neutrality-suspicious. Of petitioners granted
order to he setieled on two days notice - r .,.o,o
TRIAL TLgs PART L-BEfolE JUDGE CADozo.
HORSE CASH.
John White agt Mcnjah VI. stanicls
The plaintiff In this case purchased hGrse carr ana
journed TO saloon In the neghborhood TO settle Aer tue
Mr. White ws pSd hs a fG T sSesreS ON s s
scene seized the animal Plaintiff that he purchased