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

| y
Of United States is alone entitled 10 share IN the
said prize.
| SUPERIOR C0URT-SPEcAL Tfas-oci i"-beofe Jus
vt orrsr,oxs as TO THE RIGHT OF COMMISSION
| MERCHANT TO DELICATE HIS AUTHORITY.
| Consantn Rosswog agt. james w. Seymour.
tain eulrv consigned by the plaintiff the Defendant in New
Orleans in iso TO sell commission and which it is al
legged defendant converted TO his own use dernuding the
nntid An order granted by judge Robertson
In August last and the defendant who here visit from
New Orleans arrested and held to bail IN $500 The case
now comes before a motion made by him 10 dis
charge the order Of arrest and eaonerate the bail
yalne of The goods and that they consigned TO him for
sale 1861 but SAYS that he sold worth Of such goods
has in ready pay thai the balance
Of such goods he gave Mr. Church to take TO Mexico and
leo but the defendant him again until May
sts when Church came back New Orleans aad told him
OF all the goods and had been sick Other aayits
produced behalf defendant stating that Church hnd
Orleans with goods sell and his long absence aud his
return with the Of his being robbed wen known
in Orleans defendant also that he did
believe Churchs story about the robbery and going 10
have him had his counsel told him the burden Of
proof as to Church not having robbed would him
The plaintiff eontended that the defendant had Ia authority
20 employ suoageni or to send the goods to MehG 70, sale
Of the goods their proceeds that In 62 plaintiff
sent Mr. Waach with power Of attorney TO Nev Orleans TO
sd2 the defendant said he had not sold any of
paee few miles from New Orleans and ncy said word
about Church having taken them TO McHico.
Defendant aierward short letter To plaintiff saying
that he could not give any account goods vet Church
had Of them in Mexico and he had 10 visit hear from
Church what sales he had made the 81 writing
this letter ne6 defendant never wrote again TO panuh and
TO him give him any account OF The goods
ant Sheriff and went back 10 New Oars that de
iendants property on. Il bis hand. and . ~ possession o. de
PENDANTS wife who holds Judgment over h These latter
statements are denied by the defendant
Defendant Urged that the custom Of tie cwey trade allowed
him employ agent and the agent robbed be was
rkogCsaCl Also he could send the II W0!fu OF Noh
fedeTae money 10 plaintiff In e because Gen Butler oI
babe any Confederate money being paid irou one person to
another.
Plaintiff brought ada,its from jevey merchants here and
permitting the delegation Of the factors authority To sub
agent but that the custom 20 hold the agent responsible ior
tie goods in many cases also defendant factor
DEL creders ndorsc al he received for the
goods aud get Is per cent for all sae that the cons
defendant, personal irut 10 Be- delegated that
the defendant had right TO sell any the goods for nnlaw
ful currency which unknown in s when tho goods
of the proceeds b. sending Confederate money plain
if in ls62 when had value and IN keeping until was
worthless.
The Court said that II had doubt the defendant
authorized to sell for Confederate money but there was qles
Of linn IN iss y NJ walaeI lie plaintiff agent
there doubt the defendant could employ want "a
would lie protected he doubted whether defendant had tie
l h ' 90 Rs or New YcrI to eel. hat The terms OF
employment between the plaintiff and defendant we're that TIE
goods b. sold in New Orleans but that IN ihee points
Robert b Roo-e,s, counsel and Joseph i DAILY attorney for
phlhilU. D. l. a. n is"V'ih w N''N"'''
..- ..'rks tRcisi6ys. ~
The Bank Of the Republic agt. Frederick y. Law
renee ns,guee &c. ct al-Mo,ion denied with Is o'-is
Philip Gafrey agt George Chapman =, Motion granted
wm IL Brush j., ast- Charles Young-Mo'ion granted
Never Finn agt Julia CaItOa-Motion to opeo default
granted, with s0 costs
John T. HendrielsOn agt George W Beers-MoisOa
james r Dunam Ct al. ag James PhelAn-Moicn grated
stephen Kcnney agt. Margaret Sut,on.-MoIou granted
Elizabeth Wiley. Administrative Ac., james IN.
pleaded, &c.-Moiion granted ON terms.
David C. Berry agt Morris Ketchum ct alNoton granted
VIM II. McVicar agt. Edward IL ketchum ct aL-Mo,!on
Pho c. calhoune. assignee &C. agt John Kelly Sheriff
WIN Ii MevicaT agt Augustus W Greeneai {, al Motion
James Deyine ng Frederick p James e, s.ComIaOt die
VIM Carey agt Sarah James-complsnt dismissed S'b
james DevDe ag. Frederick p Jane. ct s-cOaphiDi die
Before Justice CARVE
Christopher Fine ct al ag Slas FodThe prayer o Ison
denied with enc costs to abide event,
Alexander Annot agt Charles heTerry-Aoton denied
TRIAL TEuy-BeSore Justice JoSFs
DIFFICULTY BETWEEN A CAPTAIN AND LosGsHoBKMkS-
EVANS ACT. HAND
lons'hcemsn against the captain and mate Of the 'ehcones
America for assau, and battery The ,tory Of the pan,u
that be went Oh board to serve The captain and Wa.
assaulted without The defendants story somewhat
builder in The course Of which crowd ssstmbled and
enced throwing stones Of the vessel That while IN the very
The hctOE, pMlhtn came
time the ropes OF the schooner were cost on and t doe
builders piled being hauled down 10 crush IN
the stem Of the schooner that the schooner boom then 90
fixed that would the uprrts Of the pile trircr AID
keep of that the plaintiff went oft and ATTEMPTED to push
Of the very position into which the captain hadbTought
IT, cutting Of the for the purpose that he spoke TO
him three times politely, tui the continuing TO push
against him he finally seized him by the collar and threw him
down when the plaintiff attempted to draw his knife and got
somewhat badly hunt in consequence. -,
equally positive and the jury directed to bring
chuSneey shafer for plaintiff Huntey for defendants
SUPREME COURT-srrrAL TEm-Before Mr. Justice
DANIELS
A SICB QUESTION IN THE LAW OF REAL ESTATE.
VIM Provost Executor &c. and others act James T. Pro
yOost Executor &c. and others.
In ls25 VIM. Il. Provost made his will, by which
gave his wife the aud income Of all his estate during
her paurs life and directed his executors to appropriate for
the use of his daughter Elizabeth Mary rs per week during
her life charging hi, real and personal estate He
directed executors after the death Of his wife and until the
death his daughter Elizabeth and the arrival his youngest
child full age rent the houses and lands and divide le
rents among his children and after that continues u
| is my will that my said executors 90
sell aud dispose OF all my remaining estate, both real
and be paid in equal parts to and Ses and
ali nv children james T. Provost and William Prov oos
two OF lis children and Samuel Cowdey appointed his
executors Tie testator left surviving him his widow, his
daughter Elizabeth May and seven sons James r. William
the Youngest child Of age prior 1896 The widow died
in si6 aud the daughter Elizabeth Mary. June y, 1864
William Provost of the plaintiffs In the notion was e
chief acting executor There large property
| passed under this viii amounting now to over 10000 III
| value
In 1870 David Provost and George Provost released hoI
interest in portion Of the property Immediately in suit "a
James Provost who Of the executors In 1872
William Robert c. John s. and Samuel A. Provost granted
their the property TO Tie same person who june
30 1854 conveyed the premises 10 Edward Is Wesley for tic
nominal consideration Of - OO0 The Plaintiffs claim that
worth 10000 aud that this conveyance was imperative IN law
and was fraud the heirs aud persons interested in the dis
ition Of the This property includes u
County. aud portion Of IL had been
veye by deeds widow and children Of the prior
and ultimately into tie hands Of one Justus X
| Buckley. -
Tie widow and three Of the children mogaged the balance
| IL 81 lLal N hold hI