New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-09
SUPREME COURT CHAMBERS-Nov 5.
Before Mr.. Justice SUTHERLAND.
TIM UARpOR OP NEW.YOgK.


piles In the arbor Of New York between Piers Nos Is ana ~
y r. which Harho Commissioners claim us on encToich
Ty mowers 10 remove sucb distractions but this satisfy
Ing the plaintiffs they have endeavood to anticipate any posi-
DE action Of the Commissioners and have applied Tor ana Cd
on The complaint In THIS action and affidavit verifying the
II Is ordered that the defendants ~ i action le ser
wants and agents and an persons acting under any authority
Instructions the said defendants their servants or ngeIts
each and every Of them be and they hereby commanded
and strictly enjoncd from pulling down remopng or in any
interfering with the piles and structures made by the plain
plant in mont bukhcad between Tie piers siuuted In the
bay and harbor Of the City Of ana which are known
pndency Of his action OF until the further order Of TINS Court
Dated Nov 7, 1850. JOSIAH SUTHERLAND
Justice Of the Supreme Court
DECISIONS
Israel Loowondahl agt Jacob anney q aMoton granted
Laura Lewis agt William Lewis ct al-Order granted Al
Farmers Loan ond Trust Company art Chas sevin ct al
Meta 9 BreyoOrt egt Ebenezer H. Brown Ct aL-Molons
Before Justice C1EEKE
Phineas Windsor agt {. G. Duucan.-Ordcr corrected.
CIRCUu-NOy. e-Beiorc Mr. Justicr MULLEN
OPERA MAEAGER MONA SUITED.
Anibd Hacchl ast John sctepler and Robert Schuze
defendants.
The plaintiff who is Or was an oTcra manager alleges TINT
the defendants who bankers m this city made him
temporary loan Of 5000 in April and Jgue hot leaving them
collateral security Sl $50 bonds. that the said $4,000
with the interest due and he deengnns legal commission as
brokers has been rendered them and the bonds demanded but
thar defendants refused to return them end salt accordingly
brought oT s1OU with Interest nom ite lst Of Jny 'oa
Plaintiff counsel IA opening Che case SAID hat u had been
poncd until January tire panuf and important wit
nesscs IN the City OF Mexico aud could not be in this
city unth that time
e defense was that bonds e security tor
specie drafts obtained by pnuia Havana and The City Of
mission added IL amount gold then being about 25
than the security Plaintiffs counse iebcd that be- bad
the amounts drawn IN Havana and Mexico In gold and
demanded the 5J bat that defendant refused to receive on
specie obtained az Havana aud Mexico
QUe animated dialogue cslcj btwccn counsel for plain
uNs
Alter The tesnony Of PLAINTIFF counsel Defendants counso!
moved for dismissal o. the complaint arguing that the con-
plant bad not been sustained
TIE Court said he thought That this case could stand r
the that h developed t there partners
who ohaucd those Gtt0rs OF credit lnd obtained the specie IN
Havana md bieYca and that DE paa.l brought suit bis
own hlDe without explaining The omission OF bis partners
Counsel for plaintiff then read testimony 20 show that Baochi
toe only party who obtained The letters g.. credit
AIer TIE examination OF ves on behalf % plaintiff and
sQn deuito discussion between counsel and the Court Tie
SUIT ABOUT A CHECK GIyES AS MARGGy.
wn B. Jsudon and another agt David Eead and another
Tie PLAINTIFF who stock commission brokers aegc that
defendant Read the I'D OF March leo made check
Go s5S ea Rf iH' REo hd o d1, ia. Ss @
value received on the day delivered The caecs to CAD
we'll who the day value received nd0rse and de
yerod the check plaintiffs thut they on receiyng the
check deposited Il In the Bnnk n the common h and that
Immediately sent 20 DE CaunohHfie Bank for payment
which refused that tie cheek sucl refusal duly
protested and notice given "a defendant Cndpe ihoi deend
ans are Indebted ~ nhs on lc cheek 70 ile amount OF
sC0 for which, IN addition 10 interest aud protest fee suit
Defendant Read admits making ne check but denies deliver.
IN % Caldwell for value rrceycd dcurs that Caldwell
Ceycl consideration from plaintiff for the check. leaves
plaintiff prove the presentation ui the cAcl az the bank de-
that plaintiffs the law i tie cheek that DO
10 indebted them therefor that De- delivered the check
% Caldwell without any consideration ie nscd By bin
Clrv aguiust shares o. Cumberland Coal and 100
sharea New York Centn Stock b. purchased 0r their
that said Cumberland Coal Stock purchased
b. the Ianus stock brokers he gd aud ~ 81 March
ltG5 sold tho 25th month
profit Of about sO and the 10 New ork Central
sold the 21th profit 90 ~ ~ that these purchases
and taies made JOINT ui defendants the
plaintiffs well knew the security % This check and the
only transactions made such security the Oin
defendants AL which the piutt knew the lime that II
the check presented payment II after the stock
had been sold and the profit realized and Hl liability Tor loss
bad erased Defendants also that the 7h Of April
1853 he commenced suit against plaintiff I0ds
made. The OF Cas eli Substantially ths
Reeds
Caldwell testified the stsHi that De fsyyed vhh
the protest
that Mr. Read il not habis Tor stocks purchos after DE
ceck returned protested without express orders run him
bis authorized agent
That 81 tie jury believe that Mr. Read had money enou
che bank 10 pay tie CHECK when presented of mayhem
and that il vas not refused by bis d.esd directions no fecoy
BE- had the check agan him it duly pa
tested against him. which IL
The Court charged accordingly.
Tho Counsel for the Plaintiff requested Court charge;
That n the OF check parO notice OF payln-t
That the exhibition OF original certificate % sufficient
notice 10 hold ~ indorser or maker OF check
That statement 10 the maker by officer NJ DE bank
which the check drawn that the CHECK bad boon protested
- sufficient 20 hold the maker
Which the Court refused.
The jury rendered verdict for plaintiffs Tor hi a1Ourt
claimed L. n Wight for ElaiutIs la d. Warren ol de-
PENDANTS