New-York tribune., 1866-06-18
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
The Court Of Appeals.
Tho Rchmosdyle Union Seminary etc. Respondents est
John Mcdonald, IT,, Appellant

Tho Richmosdyie Union Seminary, etc, Respondents sst
John Mcdonald, ir, Appellant.
This was an action brought to recover for an al
legged subscription shares Of s capital stock The defend
subscribed for eight shares Of its stock $500 The sup
trial The plaintiff also proved that the Seminary buildings
erected and school commenced II was also proved IN
exceptions that plaintiff incurred large expenses on he
faith OF the subscriptions etc.
Defendant claimed that his subscription TO the paper
did net make him unless the accepted by tie
plairt and he became legal sockhoder OF which he IN
there evidence and also that his promise "as
This held that the paper signed b5 the defendants
bling In the form Of subscrioten to the stock OF the
t and then rbng for the same when ne
thus signed etc came plaintiff and produced at
the trial basis Of plaintiffs Of action was
s1 % ss SenSG % Of Of STOCK That the
obligation resting the corporation TO issue the stock to the
ration 10 the extent Of his stock constituted sufficient
sideraton sustain bis promise to pay for it, That be was
liable to pay his subscription aud the udS was
| affirmed with costs JOEL TIFFANY State Reporter
| mandaz Defendant In Error.
The defendant jointly indicted with one Saliva
dor alias Pecier the murder Of otero in November last
January and convicted Of murder in The frat degree The
wss ~. erred IN sdns proof that the cloth
ing worn the defendants the night OF tho murder was
found at the time TO be marked with spots which
had the stains Of blood and In permitting the
clothes stained be inspected by the jury The ground
of the exception that witness not experts as chem
ists &C. competent TO establish the fact that the
spots found on the clothing OF the defendants were
|
found upon the clothing person Of
party accused had always been recognized among the
fying them evidence and by tho inspection
Of Witnesses jurors had the sanction OF mmemor
OF the stains by them had always
regarded by the Court primary and legitimate evidence
that the degree which entitled depends upon
variety Of circumstances to be considered aud weighed by
he adgmcn, Of the supreme Court reversed and that
Of the Court Oyer and Termner affirmed and the proceed
10
Francis Ferris agt. The People
The plaintiff in thls was indicted, tired and
convicted Of crime Of murder In the dst degree in the
Court General Sessions in and for The City and County Of
frmed in the Supreme Court ana The prisoner brought hs
reversal of the conviction ground that the Court OF
tried him after the expiration Of the trial week
ruled the haenge by the prisoner 10 the array and that the
riction &C. was against evidence
proyon Of the act (ch r. full author
y to Try prisoner after the expiration Of the third week Of
teru the provisions Of that Act were applicable to the
Court Of Of the City aud County Of NeWYork
The Court held that irregularities in drawing the jury
SsIs ne s9 the and the prisoner could
have n injured thereby for which reason such regu
the verdict clearly sustained by the evidence the
Court affirmed the Judgment Of the Court below and remand
ed the ha,c the sentence Of death carried into
john NJ Presket applicant agi Clara Leonard admnistra
triI and survivor Of Darius W. King. respondent
This was an aetion upon promissory note made and
executed by the 6rm Of IL ID W King to the plaintiff the
9Th October 1852 Two days after the firm made
assignment for the benefit OF their creditors requiring them to
collect aud pay all their debts due or to become due
agnin, them actually borrowed. including also
debt due IL. Merrck for -four All payments be made
pro rata The o. the plaintiff within the provisions
Of the assignment IL having been given for borrowed money
On lh Of July 1885, the assignee paid upon plaintiffs
aud the Endorsement made H. This
,on the 10th day OF October 1885, being
within years from the time Of making the payment by the
assignee but than I years after the execution Of the as
sgnment
This held that the payment by the assignee In Octo
ber 1859 the belonging the plaintiff his pro rata
share moneys collected under the assignment not
10 be deemed Of the defendants inesae In
such sense az 10 take from under the statute OF lin
itaons that payment by general assignee holding in
trust for creditors not 70 bc deemed TO be tho oct OF the
assignor &C. Judgment was therefore affirmed the
that Of action otherwise barred by the statute
Of would not be received BY payment made by the
asaig oft la dsht