New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-14

pointer received the blow complained or which 1t seems was
given with The back Of the and rendered the carpenter H.
sensible FOR a brief time, about IS minutes
a. carpenter whom examined IN reply 70 questions de-
med 5e he had even made Improper proposals 10 defendant OF
be desHdant seemed deeply affected hearing Of the PEN
tgoo. Tie was adjourned tin to-day al p H.
sCrEUsE COURT-Cmgu--NOy. l5Ecforc Nj Justice
MUEEN
A FIRE INSURANCE QUESTION
Spencer T. Pnmlee agt The Hoffman Fire Insurance Co
The plaintiff who is tho assignee of the Psrnlee
oe Company Of cwHaven CouIi brings sqt TO &c
cover from defendants an Insurance company ot ms eiy,
m insurance policy. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants on
s S ,Se P. 9sSS opo Forte company o. So 81 Insured tie
Company 20 tic Of g. 600 the stock and materials IN
Nestle that the business OF Company assigned
b De Company plaintiff and also The policy BY ne consent
m mo Defendants that the Goth o. August 1868 great
proportion OF the stock and materials in the factory were de-
uoye by tre that due notice ives Given GySaa 2, thS
c loss s. zoo oI which tey bad become Liable By their policy
y ~ 5e fe represontaons a. to he occupancy OF the
hsdiag stating thai aud would be occupied b. them
reads company violated portion Of Tho bHlg being oc
cuPiod - fire arms company Hhch was aag ssroas Dasi
defendant by the plaintiff be made false approximations
his losses gg , osth ss d 9gs Ts aTg soa
uy Of beudne contrary to the agreement IN ihe pohcE.
a.nSi moved tic dismissal Of the oon LIANT for the reasons
cousiaed ia the answer which The Court refused to grant
cons 10 ne anWeT alter which the Court directed verdict for
sindiosd Woodruff for plaintiff Wheeler H Peekhum fOE
Before Mr. Justice JosEpH r B,RNARR
1HR OeGA NIZAIIOs OF TIL sIATR MLITIA-WHO ARE IHR
PROPER ELECTORS or TIL COLoNELsi
Tho People rel Chas. NJ Catn ag- Wm. II. Farrar.
Tins actoa in the nature Of W0rrGIto 70 deter
whho tho reletor the defendant properly the Colonel
~ Use a kgns1 N - r. ~ e OS SLa - y ~ ~ @
teber ore ocers met AMI held an election which resulted In
TIE officers four in number voted but It did ap
pear his trial how they voted. a commission Vas accord
Fr "a Tho vplofr 0offh offe
appealed 10 Brig Gen Hall to set aside the election on tho
ground ilal The stat officers nominated by be Colonel ad no
right az the election Of colonel Cen Hal affirmed
s.der e~rt Capt Broueham appealed om bis decision to
ihc Governor, COmmandeTiE-CheL Tic COMMANDMENTS
Chief ougl his Adiuaui General arnrhed BE election for
sceiioa lc.aa in lie e,oics Of TIC dciads1t
Tho !4t- claims that The original election was valid ard
proper ana hat lie is siil Of nyt e Co9ns Of ao neat
NJ laiH being nsarpc They argue that he stan officers
~ couhissioiep olictis arc ct.u lQAE vac statutory
electors ard t they are not sun he Gsendans oi9r up
sriug election must show that The caiOr elected By
Illegal sotcs-not merely that Illegal votes clst
The defendant claims That stan oLeers ae not lel9del
auI chose cLfed o. vote and tlat Eer parc patton IN 10
yitas and uat the decision Of tic CommarderlChc IL
D. Ieewcd by the COURTS aud that ms esto by assuming to
sgesccd IN the election and is now es'oppd ron raising 10
gestion abe Court reserved is deea5i Mr. Fihiah for
SPrCAL TER,--Before Mr.. Justice P0IEA
AN ALLEGED NUISANCE
Charlotte HTeh agt. Thomas Olive.
It's application for pcpetual injunction to restrain
iendant who keeps bakery at tho corner Of Hi1etecnthst
conducted 10 be nuisance O. tao n0ehb0rhood
Counsel plaintiff endeayored 10 show that plaintiff end her
famy WHO reside door 70 the bakery, constantly
noyod aad suffered ia their health account Of the stencil and
beet hom defendant basers ana alo camtd uat II was
BeigiorhoOd Counsel for defendant cOEeBded that the
nonnor aud nuisance and that The present suit tie
result Of animOsy against dedant y eeaia parties in the
nsghtpThood and asked dismissal Of the complaint He
about 70 i've l0na in support q BIS motion dis
wheB the hour being late the cout adjourned 70 ibis
morning L. Aiather for plaintiffs Il W. townsend for de-
crAanEns, Before Mr.. Justice sUTuraLup
TBH MURPHY DIVORCE CASA LARGE CLAIM rOR ALIHONY.
Anna L. Murphy aet. Andrew OroRs
The plaintiff IN this suit claims that her husband as treated
cecdog against him for limited divorce that this action has
been referred and s nov pending mat she IL without any
may derived from her h0sband that her husband left the
city secretly for California in september 1861 hat her husband
doing large dry goods business and o. interest
in gas company in san Francisco worth $1,000 That h in
9e 20 'sS WI N over bs 1a ~ y a 10Y Sg ~ l
isposing Of lis property and in California ara going 70
oft property She further THAT her husband purchased
o lot no "a East Thirty foohst a. residence cr her snd
sRd her children took possession Of il with his assent aud
sue has continued 20 reside in the house being
isree AID connections aud tie lot being % feet front and ex
tending from lot 70 lot and only 100 feet from Madonaye
that he has since threatened 70 turn her ont that the de-
Ge1dass Gross has combined and eoniederae with her hB
band 20 deprive her and her children the house and that
60 rc tie premises IN question with the hrnnre aud tx
tst they were sold nomnay for eco Oootougb really
wUh SOlOO0but really without consideration that ths
sss without The consent Of the plaintiff any release by her
Ul6 being rst informed Of II by letter Of September 90 1866
notifying her that Mr. Murphy had reserved possession down
May 1866 and aerwaTd hired tho house for four months
bat that having expired he Gross desires possession She then
dependent the charity Of her sister aud other relatives for
che Loan q few doars from time 70 time She that the
descendant intends 10 eyct her, ard asks an injunction.
O0 ms an injunction granted restraining him nom dis
fofsessnf the poln or from disposng Ofthe property
3Le ccendant denies information and belief that the
p1aRs husband has treated her In cruel and nhuman
aid Gays that the plaintiff only tool possession Of the house
IN question Of bT. huTphys family He denies that
there any fraud bis part IN the purchase OF the property
pFopty offered ~ Murphy fox sale 70 oilers but IN The
sbnce Of his Ries signature could not get the price he
wanted and that ultimately after ten days negotiation Muir
pay and Gross came 10 agreement for purchase dfed
anti notes that Mr. Murphy hired handsome, furnished
house last Spring known the Mansion House New
Bfghon staten Island at rent Of geo C6 per month as
residence for himself and his wife and requested his wife 70
move heT but that she refused sd Tie house IL now vacant
The adays which THE defendant Used On the motion 10
nsoe the injunction set up that TIE husband had left pro.
vision Tor paying the bills Of Mrs Murphy aud that she had
sat IN bills 70 bis agent amounting 20 nearly eC0 pet day
nat IBIS agent Instructed TO furnish With money bat
that she had declined 10 receive H.
roe Court interrupted tbs discussion By suggesting HAT an
indepsllent suit Of s Kind ne oeY remedy that
The wies right depended her success m he e lt
odcr ~ the original suit Wien II decided
Tie Court atef some further dicu sion tool e nare-.
ia decision i'l -
ras BOARD or HEALTH AED TnE nAsrilc.rp "a or
MANURE.
EnOCh Coo aBt Jackson s. Schultz ana oflefs
ne loh9Sg elaborate oPlnoa Las been rendered By Air