New-York tribune., 1866-12-31

I'm possession. Twenty hOg>caus OF moasSc Mclt ouu
the place at the time. II row turns ont tha Murray
continued TO run his distlcry Notwithstanding tins
seizure the keeper acting superintendent aud has run
Is hogsheads Of molas making at Least l! sa9nS - :"
WHISKY on the 2It, the District Attorney heard thai
Murray running. and he sent word To Collector Wood
10 that effect Notwithstanding this, new lnaakes were
made Thursday and agaiE on Friday ana the sun con-
tInues in operation. On Friday the District Attorney
caused warrant to be issued against Murray ana on
Saturday he arrested and brought mp before Con
sioner Newton 1t is understood that Friday he paid
t26O TO the Collector settlement Of the case II tr
ther appears that the owner OF the property one CONWAY
did from October 10 Nov. II. sell very large amount o
liquor 10 Deyn The case down for hearing before
Commissioner Newton this morning at 10 o'clock
SUPREME COURT -CnlwpEps-DEc. s.-Bcfore Justice
INCRAiiAM.
THE CROTOS BOARD DIFFICULTY - ARGU-
MENT OF COUNSE1s-LAW OF MANDAMUS.
People ex rel John j. Bradley ag Thomas stephens aud
Robert L. Darrdgh
The motion in this case was made on an or
der to show for pcrcmptOy mandamus 10 stephens
and Daagh. the President and Assistant Commissioner
OF the CToton AgnrGuci S Beard TO na@e f VT dSny bGy
the 7t of December into the ofce OF President O
The present incumbent Mr stephens refused to sur.
render the office. on the ground that the Tax Levy not
extended the term ana Withdrew from the Mayor the
appointing power. He claims under the following causc
SSaaIies OF the Croton Aqueduct Department. s9l7sO
The Engineer and Assistant Commissioner OF the Croton
Aqneduct Department nov in office SHAH continue IN
passage Of this act and any rdccy ia their HtWb Shad
be Gdcd by e meHbTS ol the BodJd remaining a. oDee
The return Of Mr. stephens sets forth that since the
18th of APRIL 1860 ne has been President of the Depart
ment aud that he st continues to discharge the duties
the office he has been advised by his cOuncl that
other person has been appointed In the manner pro
Nided by law.
Mr. DarraGh returns that he has not appointed has
he united with Mr.. Craven. the Chief Engineer, IN ap
pointing ANY person 10 f the vacancy IN the 0fee Oi
the expiration Of Mr. stcphus term OF office Besides
these returns there the affdavlt OF Neisoh j. Bt'eDy
laturc. and before the signature of the Governor mad
been attached, the clause read Engineer ANA Assistant
Commissioners, but these words had been subsequently,
a.
ions Of the act for an alteration OF the charter OF New
York IN regard tO the CrotOu Aqueduct Department
of te act It vas fatiHr nreied thai n II was conSt
tuona the plain aud direct reading OF the act could not
apP, to the President Of the Board but only to the En-
ginecr and Assistant Commissioners.
MIR Marsh who appeared behalf OF Mr. stephens,
TO test the right of Mr. Bradley to the office especially
where the consttuonality Of the law was brought IA
question: with regard To Mr. Darragh IL was peculiar he
being Assistant Commissioner and that not being the
Mr. Justice Inaham stated that he had considered the
point and regarded Mr. Darragh as a proper party. AIR.,
Mr. Marsh argued that tho wrt could only DE gustned
II Mr. Bradley had better title 10 the office than Mr..
Daagh The question at issue was the title 10 the Office
The proper method OF g he Question wa ~ ~ L
practice Of the Court To interfere by mandamuS where
the proysOnso the not In The constitutional
local Orpryatc the rOnOun their IN the clause re-
fcrred to the Board body and not simply 10 the En-
ginecr and Assistant Commissioner.
The substance of the argument OF Mr. Hutchns' VINO
followed for Mr.. Dar1ugh was substantially tue same
the parry In office had some color Of right that the rule
against a mandamus issuing would apply; 1t would not
apply 10 mere claim In tas case the had but to
read the act 10 see that the defendants had no h what
ever. There were disputed facts in the ease The
construction OF the act concnded for by the defend
ants was such forced one that the Court could not en-
IMPORTANT QUESTION OF PRACTICE-TIIE COLUMBIAN
INSURANCE COMPANY.
in re Edward Rowe q al.
The pettoner an this case insured In the Columbian In
surance Company aud gave premium notes. Inc Com,
theSe The petitioners, the OthCr ndD0, lau
claims against the Company To nearly the extent OF hr
notes Fearing however that they could not properly
set up these claims In the action they petOned the Su
preme Court 10 compel the Receiver 10 allow them rs
setOff IL was argued In opposition 10 he motion lai
these claims did arise until after the dissolution OF
The Company, and were therefore not proper Offsets
against the Receivers. Tie following opinion was rem
dered by Mr.. Justice IngrFhan:
think the doctrine OF equitable set oft where mutual
credits have existed applies 10 these cases tha tne Claims
OF the petitioners should be allowed against the notes
given 70 the premiums on the Insurance m1se 1
shOuldbe allowed on both sides Iron the tic When te
payments due IL Is suggested that IN the action now
pending decision Of this question should be made at
the Circuit may be difficult at the Circuit ~ an acoh
90 recover the face OF the nOtcstO allow such set or
when the case Is tried before g az any re Is bes sst
off As they do not admit the amounts claimed by the
petitioners reference might be heccsSay 20 auust id
accounts Of both parties An order should De s.'eiod
allowing the Receivers TO make such adjustment ana
allow such set Oft II they refuse and 90 TO tal ~ the
action referred TO- the parties may then have the Dnet
Of this order -,
A. W. speer, for petitioners; Mr. Dudley Field for re-
spondents
THE NATIONAL BANK NOTE COMPANY QUARRIIs.
Fitch shepard et al. dRt George H. DanlOrtn ~ VI.
motion in this out of action relating
10 the stock Of the National Bank Note Company on
which II will be remembered two actions were recently
tried The question is simply whether the parties 70 the
original contract for forming the company, being Dead
their representatives have continuing right MI Jus
tice Inaham delivered the following opinion IA the case
clearly OF the opinion that the contract tern
mated By the death Of OF the parties The Wnoe O
feet OF the agreement defeated by that event NO
nutualty existed aerward and the provision that the
paes should be equal In all respects and should hold no
less than treefths of the stock, could not be earned
out II personal engagement not phding the rep
enforced except the third article as 10 the surYVOrs
And that action would be imperative 10 certain
extent because II contemplated that Gil should snare IN
purchased whereas the representatives OF the
deceased could have no right so To do.
IL there could be no equal partnership because tne
surviving parties would have the right 70 more than one
seventh Of the stock 30 purchased ana then the
would retain his own share aud that OF his deceased asso
ciates. think the contract Is at an end q,
The Injunction was therefore, improperly granted, ana
shoud 6e dissolved. Ordered accordingly.
Eyarts Southmayd and Choate for defendants; staniy
and Laydell for plaintiffs.
BUPREBfE C0URT-CHAMRERs- S9.-Before Justice
MASON.
DECISIONS
In re the petition Of Thomas NJ wheeler et alPetton
denied with costs.
Before Justice ISoRAHAM.
Pitch Shepard ct al agt Geo. q DaIforth et al-Ihe
soved In re the petition Of Edward Rowe et aOrder TO
be entered allowing the receiver mako adjustment DC
George r. Keller agt, PiersOn g. Mattox.-Motion denied
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-sPEcfAL TERN-DEc. ~
Before Judge CAkDozo
PARTNERSHIP LAW.
Leighton Pine agt. Marcus OrmSbee.
This action was tried before jury on framed