New-York tribune., 1866-12-31

ssuos and motion Is now made hy the plaintiff for
judgment, who asks Tor an a'',thinS W LII, T." @ It ,
part Of the Judgment, UpOu the ground tnat tn' pu!O
acconntiIg soi be hsd only ~ Fob. D 1855. Nhcn the
parties scrafatrd and longer. the following i the
,nDozn ii I'M of opinion tlat a partnership snch
as the july found M t Cse-that is, onc FOR no iilie
p@iud dissoluable by either part i3' ,f N t 3ut
,dy.nti"n may be- ipHcd frc, circumstIccs ard irt
the withdrawal 0f partner, and DIG refusal to ~ ON WIZ
1Sse sfory ON PAT t2i5, J275 Couycr ON Part IcoJ
The allegation Of nc bill here - alJ nteVlWiF 20 R IVY
recollection tlc proof was, that Mr. Pine Nbdie" NON
the partnership on the 2d Oi February, lS", ana Clyi
afteIward took any part in IT. IMS Lib, t Iy"S b R
plicatiOn should be inferred FROM tie Whhdlh"ai G
partner and his refusal 90 proceed Win TIE Dus,'
Ills docs not absolutely dispose % the question ~ 10 le
Nod to e co,I,d by the accounting II Nr. OImsDee
had then put aside NIr Pines sharc Of the pOcs ~
kept Il separate and distinct from the moneys Mit Wien
| think that period would terminate IL IL si,ttIcd
right 20 account. But u Is p.r.ov.H, pi, ,'1',e
! that If either partner uses the phitclShp fr,iT
erty even after dissolution, DeoIe HHai ~ ~
ing and dishlbuton ana makes pioliV guy t,1r.,n, ~
he must account IOr that Il1nt US P'it III
property or be may be charged Win ,eies' ,og
at tis day one would question this Iulo VI ' LIN
biity If tis partnership Scr an Ordinary one one W "n, f
the purifiers were interested iu the stock bu the ihse
that they were Oniy tcrestod In the proceeds can ako
no difference principle By the us' OF he pi9o'r,,
IN which Pine interested. Ormsbee hs maze sy
profit, ta; profit must be decired V " i c,s
ery. Mr. Ornsbeo could have ltetel'ei Ne .i T,,,c's
qucnee eitlei ly setting nP'Lm IT, - I ~corTtr Tc1iary
with him. II rot by aucabc alranGrinCnl ttn ~ mus
his li IN EuUV for that PURPOSE ANU
either Of these methods. aud uFcd the f,6
he must be treated as doing 40 as trustee anu I
TO account aceordnigy Ih9 nIeiuip' Iei glt fo po
therefore think be something sl%eh,i ~ ougu' =. W
vide absolutely for an accounting rom NoN ~ i."7,
euIi Z oSi ct a & Referee 10 iGuire and report
whether Mr.. OrmSbce hnd uscd nc PISosc"S PIt W W
Jointly interested. III carrying on business Slnce
the 2d Of February, and ii rot how he scpaTTsten
take and state OF the business subsequently
10 Feb p and down the time OF his report winch WIZ
be The information OF the court, SO that weh u naes
final decree II Will be able 10 say whether MT fIe mas
the right account to Feb only or 70 thr dlto OF
titled without the trouble Of any further referee accord
ing upon the referees report ana me Ic9lih> puO,s.
and verdict tho Court may be Of opinion that the one or
the other period to control The order should So po
orders given before February D. 1867 were lcd aitei t
date and take account of those trans tl0hs seplt!'
cSe Ser, nrobl % nj % even II Mr. omsbcc should show such
state Of facts would exempt him fron grntfal haocS
nfter February he might st be bound account for
the proceeds OF such transactions At all EVENT., the
whole matter wiz be before the court. ana the ih deere
can bo made without further inquire being ordered. The
rnoscd interocntoyy decree should he confO1urd TO
these views and will be settled notice to Mr. Ornoees
George F. Shea and T. Rogers for plaintiff. Emerson
4 Goodrich fOr defendant
DECISIONS.
John Graham agt. John H. McCunn.-Order granted
Cbls. Carr al. agt The Great Western ms Co see
-''-''' '''''''' CnNuDEE-Before Judge C,RDozo.
TlsE LORD BOND EOBBLRY-wM II. BABCOCk AD-
MTTTRD TO BAIL.
The ease of VIM X Bahcock. of the defendants In
the Lord Bond robbery and WHO is charged with having
received $4,000 the stolen bonds before the court
Saturday motion by his counsel TO nave him adj
mitted To bail.
similar motion was made in the Supreme Court Cham
bers short since, hut denied by Mr. Justice In
graham the ground that the Application should DC
made 10 the court from which THE commitment issued.
In the argument Saturday. IL was cOntended that
the commitment of Mr. BabcOck without bun, was IN
constitutional under the statute. providing that piles
shall be admitted to hail where the case i baiiabe ~
was also argued the evidence upon which the ndc
ment found insufficient to show quits knOwl
edge the part Of the prisoner IL was strongly urged
that the voluntary return Of the prisoner from Rhode
Island when he heard Of the difficulty with regard To the
bonds sufficient proof Of his Willingness To appear
and stand his trial, ii released on bail
Mr.. Geo ". Blunt for the District Attorney, opposed
the motion the ground upon which Mr Justice
Ingraham dismissed the previous application. viz; That
the application should be made to this court IN which THO
indictment found and that no such apncauoh NJ"
made TO that court by the petitioner although TWO
terms had been held since ts commitment
The Court. after hearing the argument OF Counsel,
granted the motion and fixed the amount of ball Al
$4,000 Up TO late hour III the afternoon the necessary
slretirs had not been procured.
q. L. Stew art and John Graham for deiehdhhi.
Geo. W. Blunt for the people.