New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-22
CHH COURTS.

efn or May, 100 tue LHlllls I've li mum
a. New Orslns aud bsc 70 this port ct s9 per mouth The
,ts That he FAD orders reu The Captain discharge them
unless they agreed o. have their reduced 20 60 Per
mouth Tie. refused % work f1. less the rate fixed b!
Tho sracs and lei Tie vessel The following morning they
applied 70 LIe 70 know whether he had ecj 1900
different orders from Che muster owners bit were ihloi
ented 70 te reduction they must 60 shore lley 'he9
Iook final agc o. tho vessel and bced hor igt Was s
board Tor inc Cat't voyage tLcir damage lor os | -
before when they again rendered
er services and offered toper.oTm TIC NO
attention was laid By tho muster ana 0%H,5 rs
cHietEnrnesr testified Tat had positive orders from
she captain discharge the tTemcn unless they Co1t I 70
owners cmcd ,hrt le chief engineer had no Hght to dis
charge the that no one but the master o. owner had mat
s and THAI ;le Of their leaving l direction Of the chief
nv Uabity under the shipping articles Judge Benedict
6oyvcr thought differently and held Judge Belts had pre-
yIouy held ia TIC Of The steamer kos hata that the
Sls, ,S5 jsisye peI coalpaDsr and ohs Who aborcd
their department such vessels that was wise and
from the chief engineers were more competent
70 Judge OF ne coaPiey o. such egese tlsn Ao SsI
owner appealed to this court The appeal was fully argued be-
lore Judge Nelson. who reserved his decision.
Barney Butler ald Parsons or appellants John LafktFee Tor
An ALLEGED YEAUD IN oB1ArSRe Az INSURANCE POLICY
Jonathan Godfrey agt The sun Mutual Insurance Go.
This motion by plaintiffs ioI new trial the Gaze
The counsel or plaintiff in moving for the new trial said that
he action haQ been brought on two policies o. dSo
plaintiff whereby in they insured the plaintiff interest as
part Of lie tak Tycoon 10 the extent Of Se0o on
voyage from New York San Francisco the vessel being
valued $500 The insurance against the risk OF cap
re or seizure b. or arising from acts OF tie Confederate
states Of be gecnt nations The premium was four per
The other policy freight for 5000 on the same
whole freight being valued at ssOo The vessel
captured by the Alabama and due proofs o. the capture
made and payment demanded.
The defense that the policies obtained by fraud
The plaintiff being IN possession Of facts which induced him to
believe that ne 1yeSen eaq 9ea eaPiGfs ana pun e
Ignorant OF the capture when they obtained the policies and
ants as well himself and the policy was issued under that
knowledge advanced rate Mr. Choae oE defendants
ing Vice President Of defehdani COMPANY did bind de
81 me Tycoon Being well known the me o. the issuing Of
them and Nj Aut4ony having no right under those c I'M
for compensation knswn loss 1t claimed also that
ulr circumstances similar this subordinate officers had no
srtsory to bind company to tregaaieat contract
Mr. Chids made reonder contending hat the "
having initiated the preceding and favored the u
plaintiffs for obtaining the policies were mconttsnos OOAo
Tue Court reserved its decision.
Mr. Chlds for plaintiffs Mr. Choste and ETarts for defend
NE TAX on POLICY AND LOTTERY DEALERS UScoNsTITU-
TIoSAL.
The Grand Jury into Court and presented some indct
Of which was against Wm Craft for conducting
policy and lottery business without paying the special tax there
make an argument behalf Of Graft and Mr. Courtney wished
behalf Of the Government Judge Nelson de
up that the law imposing this tax unconstitutional
and ordered ths the defendant Craft and all Others who had
5tey discharged On their Owl Teggaancs appear for
a feoed uTen at the next term ~ lie Circuit Col5t com.
lncncng the third Monday February The United States
Commissioners la also been instructed to issue uye
rants f0r the arrest o. parties violating this law. This decision
VIII enable any who chooses conduct lottery policy
business unless the State laws against it enforced
OEsTAL PATENT CoMPASY-IHPoRTAST TO THE DENTAL
PRoFEssION-A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN
DESTlSTs FROM USING HARD RUBBER u MAKING DIN
TAI PLATES DENIED.
Goodyear Cummings agt Thomas G. Wal. Ct al
bis was moo1 ioT preliminary Injunction TsiT aiming
bv hess Keller Blake and
Mesr Curtis and Law for defendants the Court denied the
motion and refused interfere all prior to hearing
Ts question OF great importance % the dental profession
and IN fact 20 the public generally this denial probably fore
shadowing the result of the final hearing which II results in
favor Of the dentists will prevent Increase IN the price Of
sets Of teeth made Of hard rubber
SUPREME COURT-GESERAL TERs-Nov eO-Before jus
tees Barnard. CLERKE, aud INGRAuAN
SCHUYLER TBAUDs-LIABILTY OF FIRMS TOR THE ACrs
or PARTSERs.
The New York and New Haven Railroad Company agt Robert
schuyler end others.
This trial in the above only 70 the rights
Of Keehum, Roges Bennett The Court Of Appeals re.
veed the former Judgment against them and ordered new
trial which had 81 last April Special Term which rendered
So General Term on me Old issues tried IN s53 Mi justice
1ngraham then held that Morris ketchum, being
Tas one h ron fSoaeng the value Of the aadGon STOCK
held by hem but the Court Of Appeals reversed this decision
and held that the affected by Mr. KecAums
Tacye negligence The Special Term gave Judgment IN their
i arguing iat tho decision Of tie Court Of Appeals was
sundeTstood Tie Court held however that the opinion Of
The Court Of Appeals covered all the points and affirming the
Nj wm Tracy for plaintiffs npperants John NJ Bucking
and Edgar Van Wrinkle for defendants respondents
DECISIONS. t-ts-
MsI HeTzog sgt james n. Observation-Disclosures or
John Fitzgerald agt H KOchleT ct ol-AHovauce of 500
u In s Tie application of George Harrison an habual drunk
srd-Report Of referee confirmed and order granted
Before Justice BARNARD.
Nes Slater sgt Rowan Slater-RePort Of referee con
Armed and Judgment Of divorce granted.
Before Justices BARNARD CLERKE and SUTHERLAND.
IMPORTANT DECISION Oh RELATIVE MGHIs OF STREET
RAILROAD COMPANIES.
james NJ Waterbury and the River Ferry Company agt
md he New York and Harlem Railroad Company The Dry
Broadway and Battery Railroad Company agt The
New York and Harlem Railroad Company The East River
Ferry Company, and Oliver Charlck.
On the 18TH Of June 1855 the Dry Dock Broadway and
and in thirty f6urt5st east Of FirStsvs on the
ground filed in by the ferry company under grant from the
road previously BY them before such connection
could Be effected The tTeeks in Thirty were t0Tn up
pany proceeded extend their railroad tracks upon the
The Iv Dock Railroad COMPANY Immediately commenced nt
and procured injunction against the Harlem Railroad Com
pany the East River Ferry Company and Oyer Charncs re-
IN the location and construction OF their railroad N frstaye
Sc me East HveT feTy COMPANY SsS
companies and procured injunction restraining both nom
@ made ss 3 5,olys 10th ip1betops and such mo-
lions up before Judge Miller Hudson the h Of July
s65 who dissolved the Injunction granted Of The Dry
Dock East Broadway and Battery Railroad Company and con
tnued the injunction obtained IN the second suit
The DRY Dock Railroad appealed the General Term and
the appeal having been heard at the June Term decision
been rendered BY which both orders OF Mr. Justice Miller are
reversed with costs and the Dry Dock Railroad Company
bsh their right 70 the location adopted BY them preference
the Harlem Railroad and the injunction obtained by the
Ferry Company dissolved The following is the opinion Of
when the Dry Dock East Broadway and Battery Railroad
In and through Thirty ourhst the strip Of land 100 feet
vide point about 2 feet eattery from the esery side Of
Thirty o1rth the strip Of land between the then eastery