, 1866-02-12

ranpg his health permanently,
.Ahes tome progress had been ,nads in The case,
plsm1fs entered 4 uunxut-
Samnel Sanders and Gabriel Schwab ". Alice B,
PLAINTIFF cnstr.
Q. Fitch, Edward B. WtcEs and james n Hle EIIa,
0n motion Of defendanu' attorney, continued at
defendants costs.
Chance.y. Proof Of eets1ee by publication Rule
on defendants 10 Answer By Mondny morning nex..
William Gsllup appointed guardian ad item tor
Panl Uannachcr II Ionita Daupacher. Chancs.ry.
Proof Of service By publication. Default and Bill
taken pro eo1I.sso. This was an action 1n.t1tnsed
January Il, 1ah IL which complainant applies 10
obtain T. de11e OF divorce upon the ground ol adul.
tcrJ: The narties were married on the st Of De-
cenber. 1850, IN the Ssnte Of New York and after
enjoying to chieaco lived tose,ber unt1l Decsm.
cDnaii 10 engage In business, and his vile refused
| 10 accompany hun, lie charges that upon his de-
ol adultery NTH one August Fle1sches, ai.as Al.
George I. PIKE ys. Augusta n. Pike-chsncc,y,
Proof OF sesFiee By publication Default, and ref
| cteDce to Ira Scou Master IN Chance.y. to take
| proof and report,
Thomas Macarthur ~. Horatto Underwood ct II
Chaneery. On motion Of plaintiffs attorney dis
John n. Eld11dge yB. Martin O'Walker et al
Chanoety. Dismissed II eompla,p1ntt costs.
aslman vs; sodwell Damages aseeased at sls.4s
Solomon v; ns5 ct al. Default OF Bar only, and
Tie following is The trial cslenda, for Mondsy:
A. Norton ct a. ". Rlgg1ns.
40 Bur1E ". Ner11lL
47. RtchArds ct al It. IAthrop ct Il.
g. Same ". Fame
-. Billings Va Olnstead.
s.. sheaieT ct a! r. Gan1ed ct a.
81. Parsons n. Euk.
s.. Cuitiss II. Moor ct Al
"a, stowcll, sdm'T, rs. Hubbard.
IS. Suits, utt, etc, yA. Wallace.
In The matter OF the Asse4Anent OF North Clark
seet. IN relation to this assessment, very inter
Wtlauu-ou Saturday, during the consideration OF
number Of objections urged BY various
recently o.desed 10 dettsy the expenses of casbae
md paT7ne with wooden block pavement the street
IN question, from Chicago avenue to the bridge.
touss e.
assessment for the improvement OF the etree. still
tie present assessment ~as irregular. inasmncn a.
t.scl Is Lid upo6 Moth clask sreei I've no, ben
assessed for their proportion OF the cost Of tho i'm
proyement. .. ..
hey commended that such an assessment on the
properly OF the company was necessary, aad urge
In support OF this positlun the c1au>e Of the city
charter, whach provides that In MI cases wheIe BY
ordnance OF the Common Council It IL Ecndefcd
obligatory on the part OF the railway company to
tear any shafe Of the cott OF the improvement Of
the sr1eet npop which theiE uacks are la1d, they
asseseed upon lie properly interested IN tit in.
psuyement. sucn requirement, It is claimed, Is
10 be found IN section Of N ordinance passed
,hs asf JShn l. s'1sssa g. 1ss
providing that tho North Chicago City Railway
Company shall pay proportion Of the cost Of any
Improvement upon the street ordered by the Coun-
il WEE at this point that the question between the
property DUnerF and the city arose.
The Original manuscript draft OF the ordinance
certainly 1t one time wns shaped 50 as to embodE :
the requirement asserted but at pre- the section
containing such 4 requirement has been covered By
a plect Of paper paeted over II. and on which
diaercnt nature. Esndennx It obligatory on tne
part OF the company 10 Gully bear 4 proportion OF
ihe cost OF repairing" the street, which hardly
cu1hins, grading and paving with sieho'ton pave
The ordinance IL question is entitled AN oFdi.
Of Horte Hallway In the North Division Of the aJ
Of Chicago"
Ihe rection Mt Issue ,s the seventh, s7th> which
IN the original manuscript dfatt in the hes Of TIT
City Clerf't Office reade a. follows:
Section :. That The said eompany thau kecf
sa sn.e set e Sis I'd 0RsS s Ell
irncS. !of aid railway in good repatr and eondor
dar1ns III ibe time 70 which the privileges hereto
| pay fn The sane pruportlou for any improvement
hit thal1 be ordered By The Common Council o
said city anF o. the rtteets used and occupied b
said company, tn accordance pnh whate7yT ordi
nances or orders may BE- passed N that behalf b,
the Common Council Of The city Of Cnfcage
And The raid company shall be Liable for ii
be sustained By any person hy reason Of The care
| lesEnees negligence, or m1Fconducf Of any AGENT
or servants Of said Company in the course Of thel
employment in the conf rnction or use Of sAd rail
Over The above given section is the pastel slip q
paper. containing The follow Ing substitute:
the ,ersd'nc, paving, 1naesdam1nne, dllisg. q
which they fts construct thsir e. ssla r.l|xsys
line of said railway, On Al street. whereof
one track Is constructed, md sixteen feet In wid!t
along The Inc ssid 1s.lway whers iWo ,FasI
ing al ihe time 10 which the pr.v1leee hesch.
granted 10 said company Ehal c1tend, tn accordane
mnpnrg rcpaiss he,eo, NAV Be ps,ttd Or sdepte,
Ay the Common Council OF said city.
And the ka1d company shnll be liable for all III
legal constitutional damages which may be kns
3ned ty any person. By reason Of the caFeles-ness
| negligence Or misconduct Of any agents or ses
wants Q, said company in construction or use @
il II claiined that the ordnance az pissed and ~
proved did not contain this last mentioned section
but that the ordinance hnd been altered snbsequcn
to lie paseacc and without authority fromthc Conn
pany to pay ceTtaiG proportion 0! tue cost OF al
inpro. cnenis upou the stfeete occupied bE them. OF
authorized alteration Of the ordinance could not al
In proc, tie alle4ed nliesslon Of The ordinance
It Was proposed 10 introduce Inc ordnance ~ pub
I liAhed, IN the corporation newtpep4-the TR1BUN
| immediately after fts ps.sace, In which Eecsio
teyrn corresponds With thc ea1ne Eection ~ ortciI
aily written In the manuscript document; also t
! introduce copy oi The printed mtnuIe4 Of th
Conncn meeting coutanlnR the ordnance; also /
Introduce. NJ 10 ite identity, witneete. who we1
then members Of The Council.
OtJcctiore were nade 10 the proposed manner {
proving The a}icradons, md aher hearing The asFr
the evidence was admissible. The further heartn
I or the case uas then continued untii Monday.
On the psEt Of the 1atlroad # is couteuded tbs
actually accepted By then, June 9, 1859, cona,ne
the section which is written on the pasted slip: alse
that the printed copy Of the Charter, etc, contain
Ju1e q, Entitled entitled ..8n - ordinance euJ
ps'ns pls'D,nse entitled 1G md An s5S,sae ,u,ssza e.
the construction and opera.ion Of horse railways
| the North Division Of the city Of chicaso,' whic
declare: that SECTION eight Is, Of the ordinaoc
follows the section written On the pasted Slip
The attentions IN thc ordlnnnce-t.e T.. the sccliu
pasted on-ts understood to be IN the haudwritip
krieeman. indeed, it is stated. acknowledges III.
TACT, and bar1ng no recollection Of the crcnm .tancez
suppote4, it YES Gene in pursuance OF com. orot
Of the Council, ihoueh no such order appears o
record IN the minutes Of my subsequent meeting
The case !. a most interesting one not only c
I
brt uiso from The fact, thai the amount fuvo,yet
which must be paid either by the hallway compan
OF the properly owners. Ii nearly So 0OQ,
| The pIuper+y-o~ncrt were represented bv Hpl
Van Il. Higgins, N. F. Tulcy, ESQ, and FfaucI. a.
am., Etq. The city was Represented by S. 4. i
win, Esq., corporation counsel, and the n G. I
". Company By iIon. W. e. Guudy.
-AkE 6viI.-Shatef r.. EnEight. This was m Al
J tion of assumpsit institu1ed by Ae1ekiah Shaft
/ sghinst Edward Enhght. to recover damages laid /
4IA, for lot VI caftle purchased BY det.oda1
from complainant On the :.rh of Msv. ISL. Una
the affidavit Of rian'n alleging the non rtsidene
!. to Issue against hif property.
I Foefstcf vE- sChmldl. An action of aesnmps1t
recover damages lad Al EMO for goods sold apd d,
liy.red, wna commenced by Theobald Foersft
4cainrt Herman Schmidt to recover for Goods snf
md delivered. 4 writ Of attachment isencd main.
the properly Of the defendant upon the ground th,
be propoees 10 remoTe his Effects from The Staie.
k)pF et al. ". uaWostb ct nj. This wss an nctio
Of es<umpstt instituted by William u, Kin. m
In Scott sea1nat James e. uapp,th and Sarnu
". Jotnr, 10 recover damaccs laid at $50. b
fId,s
. Aehonourh w. Heapey. An action Of assumpsi
: N 1a!ch uhEagef were hid at $50 WAS cou
Henceo " James y. Mel}onouEh aCntnst job
pen ere ned. :f'' 'S' '''-1''"D@ Nv r
City Of Chicago ". Alfred II. B],cka,I. Anne,
bv defendant IRON Police cnuft ane 81 sin1 H.
pOeed by Justice A. D. SturfeVrr,T m fha m