New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-02


fcred their duties IL ouch Is acceptable 10 them
wih view to determine whether they win Continue them In
Office or not II cannot BE- seriously questioned but thai the
corporations notwithstanding euppeintmen Of officers 70
Gs mo ouses Si the Corporation s Ten ve, great
dnctd and consequently the abo,e reasoning have
s.., rsh, to q, knSEicdse of al the ,,1 o.,
to all Che Of kn0vledgo which their officers Posas IN
their official capacity have come therefore 70 the coneiu
TO the inspection be asks md such copies q pablo
documents as be deses There Is one sgent against grant
twoud no very allow citizens that choose so
do The Office and inspect d0cmeni and make
+ - IA arr o,e,,ca force would be
required DO not Understand that there any serious DIM
force II that should be found necessary Bat tins mere an
tcpaied deg which sppychcnd WI no. pSGecay Sa vV
70 remove IT. OF course The Street Commissoner has the
right and power 20 prescribe reasonable general rules as 70 me
Office and also such reasonable eenep rules shall DO
ear 10 preserve the records from loss or niuacn Man
INT AUTHORITY or STATE COURTS TO DISCHARGE I'm
. - a. . LISTED s0LpirIs
In 10 John lsaao Kent $3.50.
THIS VAS an application COZ The discharge Of soldier from the
United states Army but Gen BGitertcld raising te question
q tho jurisdiction Of the St Courts IN The matter hr Justice
tor and had the conclusion that he had no power ana
I'm another case 10 whichit was claimed that The enlisted
WIS hut boy uude 49, Mr. Justice Barnard made rtp snne
doeoa finding thai The boy had made oath that he was
THE MLwAuKEE AND MISNEsoIA coMrASY-rowERs OF
! DIRECTORS
WIN. r Griffith egt. Thoms a. Scott and Others n .f
An abstract the aidavits WHOA his motion made,
given in yesterday TI4nAt Inc argument was re-
tiff under the statutes Of Minnesota restraining directors
from being interested in contract ihe whole aTreeeme vas
utterly void that acqni consent the part OF
s0ckhoder could impair bis night 70 set up tbs Tact ne az,
guci that scott was i;cor when these transfers were made
or n not ms be claimed l reason OF s enOlaee OF he APP
POnimen that since us appointment was pursuant
any rate All xandei ana 'ie is eounsei he, -, w
directors and they received par Of the stock stipulated Tor ny
the agreement is was yo and as part oil The en!Ie as
ment rendered the whole void In another view, wss"d
by law The Directors held PERSONAL trust winch
they assign Under this agreement they had actually
stipulated TO asSga this personal trust % th9 party 70 SUB
stiiuc for themselves i've Directors under the direction OF one
selves and tie stockholders Of al power over the affairs Of me
Company The suit not against loregn CoTo alton BAT
against the officers Of IT, within the reach OF the Court who
illegally holding thcir positions.
Mr. Cram erred The one OF morlbund des'
pete corporation seeking or ia very c coming TO srang
ignorant the thc railroad ignorant OF the laws of
Minnesota eHtrnilng something ihe lueahs whereby 10 i've
and when last they bad by the $4,000 procured RON these
strangcrs OF life they the very who had been
active this solicitation round aud seek TO get out of
s soc ssau ~ Of nc state Of saneoa The conrac was
however vnd made 10y the Company with the defend
and Thomson while they strangers 70 the
Company HIS hi'i proposition Ea'' tna' s JOCK
hpany itself Otherwise q company might under an
unlawful contract OBJ lin property. aud the stock
holders prevent It's fulnent second he who seeks equity
tier tender back the consideration Even the
ultra the Other party might recover back
person would have 1t was the tendency Of the
treat stockholders partners m company Now
partner IN company have aSsented TO contract
either directly 6y suffering be perfected be intends
yaeais contract Herr The mo,ias parties had po ~, Is
ton OF powers there legal reason why the directors
give those whose money had given life to the company
control of il till they were paid
IL was foreign corporation and the Court coud do IT, II
could virtually suppress corporation II would do 70
joining ae officers but in three eases Neither Of these Was
Mr. vsnderpoe replied shortly
A. j. vsnderpoeI Tor plntif; IL A. Gran sad Mr. Robinson
for defendants
DECISIONS
Before Mr. Justice BARNARD.
The Saatoga County National Bank ags Thos Rchafdsoa
Ct a. Motion denied. Richard Burns agt Alex Holland
Treasurer &c Motion granted and cisrenoe ordered 20 bear
Before Mr. Justice SrrmGLASp.
Enoch Coe aet Jackson s. schultz ct al Temporary Ia,
junction veeaied continue it denied with tO
Before Mr. Justice BARNARD.
The People ex rel Richard NJ Henry agt Chas c. Cornell
Melton granted for alternative mandanuS Christopher Pr
BsTd r9 1s s IS Won sSono If paa e
bond 20 be approx by within two days the motion t
denied ond referred II not complied "i;h motion granted
UNITED STATES DISTRICT c0URT-Nov l.--Boiorc
Judge sHTNAN
THE QUESTION OF THB LIABILITY OF THE OWNERS or
r. CHARTERED VESSEL.
Edward L. Morris aud benjamin f. Ely ast the steamboat
Neyersnk.
The libelants are coal dealers in New Brunswick,
Nj The Ncversnk owned in New York aud carried
and freight between the ports OF New ork aud
New brunswick Lbclants Rege thai In March aud April
1866 they on the application Of the agent OF the Ne,
coa amounting 10 500 on account Of which thry received on
the III OF April s)o leaving balance due OF sS which IL
The answer denies that party parties who incurred this
debt hod any authority from the owner do but that
the coal delivered 20 persons who had chartered the
sci aud who in charteng her agreed TO pay for all fuel &C.
that tho vessel might require aud that the beans wei knew
trbQ
OF II wold create lien the vessel Pnd further
that the vessel domestic one and no maritime lien exists
IL and that this court has no jurisdiction 10 enforce any such
lien under the circumstances of this case
The question in the case - the liability OF the owners Of
vessel for debts Incurred by those who charter her Decision
! a Welsh for ubelauts. D. It Mcmahon for claimants.
SUIT FOR sEA1As's wAGEs-INTEREsTlsG OPINION OF
JUDGE sBIPMAN
Thomas f. Cetlaw agt Robert NJ Wurd and Walter S. Cove
owners Of the ship Chattanooga.
The following Is the opinion Of Judge Shpman In the above
case the trial Of which has already been published in TIE
1.-THE belant brings this suit to recover the sn Of t9J
which alleges his due for services rendered
10 Saguenay Canada and thence Europe The libel IS
loosely drawn that il for any other matter ton the ecoy
10 favor would be sunmhriy dismissed unit 20 furnish
proper foundation for decree The well known obligation
Of admiralty protect often leads them 10 dis
regard technical rules where strict ADHERENCE 10 them would
produce Ssy s9d esps ~ S R: s, a % o
able gather enough om the LIBEL to warrant decree IN
Tie libel alleges that tho beant shipped on the Chattanooga
mariner % the wages of So month and thai he signed
ppne articles the This very inpcr
fecy described but in such general that IL night be
made voyage whatever The allegation that he
signed shipping articles for the voyage Is without any quah
cation end shipping articles mnst therefore be presumed
have conformity 10 the act Of Congress The beGnts
proctor had theneans Of accraning whether the ship
ping articles valid They here in the Custom House
within throw Of the Court and excuse sug
gested examined and II vsd declared
the origsl libel by amendment NJ before trial The
libel asady inmeted alleges in effect that the articles
valid and tie Court will In this stage Of The and IN this
condition Of the pleadings, Assume their validity
The libel ao acgesh the lbeant performed the voyage
as Il n the arrived Gloucester England
of November let4 since which time he
duly discharged from the services Of said vessel without pay
et Of the due him such mariner and earned
board And further On the artde) that when the