New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-01-17
SUPERIOR COURT GENERAL TBR,--JAS. t5.-BefOre
Justices ROBERTsON BARBOUR and GARvIN
OWNERSHIP OF VAULTS BENEATH THE SIDEWALKS.
Geo W. Cosier sgt John r. Peters

ON the trial IN the Court below the Court charged that
tho vault the nature OF an appurtenanee TO me and
and that entitled To possession or nj t
the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the de-
tenOn OF It from him, and that the defendant was not
was ordinary and customary addition to buildings OF
similar character I'm EcWl0rk, and necessary fOr INC
proper and reasonable enjoyment OF INC premises unger
tc lease The jury found on all points in favor OF the
Plaintiff and assessed his damages at 200
From the Judgment entered Oh this defendantappealed
cainng that the jury should have been allowed 70 pass
Oh the point whether the vault was apputenant TO the
house and had fact passed adversely TO the pantf on
tbis pont that the plaintiff had title 20 the street,
that being I'm the City of Newfork but that ut any rate
The defendant was entitled to be paid for his vault
The plaintiff insisted the correctness of the charge.
The Court reserved it, decision.
lr ChOate for plaintiffs d. H. ana E T. wheeler iOr u.
''' Tm.L rERM.--Before Justice MccuM,
TIE JonASSEs-FIsK LIBEL CAsE-THE COMPLAINT Dis
George the Count Johannes al. Stephen r. Fisk
This was the suit tried before sherfs jury Tor
an article published In The L6Gdr IN 1864 In which the
Count was called Count account and other remarks
OF "a similar character made Alter tho pialnuII
evidence was in the Court dismissed the complaint on the
ground that proof had been given connecting hr Flke
with the publication OF the article.
SUPREME COURT HAMBEns-Bcfote Mr. Justice
l,e srrrs AGAINST GEN BnTfER TO ~ TRANSFERRED 10
THE UNITED STATES COURTS
7, IN. five cose, aSainst Gen. Buter reported last
week IN which motions made 70 transfer the suits
from the State TO the United states Court, Mr. Justice
s cS S the different i acts Of C6kgresn the de-
fendant entitled as matter Of course on Ming yell
fled petition 10 have these causes removed to the United
states Courts for tual cannot see what difference II
would asf to 5n sle oBr can Tt Them as caTs
and speedily the state Court No delay VIII lsoe as
the Court IS always In session"
Margaret Banman aS Henry B af %, o.
E p,n s' snys c%st oq q Children.
Edward r. Mitchell agt Alex. L. stewart'-Moilon de-
Aired Hearneyaet Bent r. Butler.-Lester Tlden and
IIebacht At The same.-Moiions granted. H.,
Rowland g. Hazard agt. James Dr. Henry.-Motion
granted on payment OF costs 10 date.
Alex BluIacnstat agt. Frank McIugh.-Motion denied
OlSLKAL TRIM-BcfOrel Justices LEONARD, CLERKE ana
JNGRAHAM.
MrNCK gtTr BY ATTACHING CHOOSES IN ACTION or A
FoREIGS DEnrORi-uHEDIIoRs AcrIoSs BEfoBt hi-
TVRN on ENhCUrfOS WHEN THE PROPERTY HAS BELN
Tie Mesn and Traders Bank Of jersey CITY sg fy Dklu and
Henry Dakin In and since 1862 resident OF the State
of Vermont and resident OF the state Of New
made prossory note dated LIST March. 1852, for 81
TAO 81 and delivered the same 10 one T. c. Brainha VINO
procured the sameo be- discounted by the plaintiffs,
Thls note rot being paid at maturity the plaintiffs com
menccd 40 action in this state and obtaged Judgment
against said Dakin by publication; In this action
Dakin wa, not personally served with summons, ana
did not appear The plaintiffs obtained on the zlst OF Jul
y vibrant 81 attachment from Judge Cerke nine DAYS
before te publication OF nc summon ana +he sRe a f 81
Ter Dakn secured by bond and mortgage, this being
the only property OF Dasins IN ths state ItS pond ana
mortgage was assigned before the maturity OF me nOte 10
Dtmnn Jewell the third defendant and or course before
Tompkius county aud he made Ito return. tbs acton
bG commencod in aidOf the execution to have the
assignment Jewell declared fraudulent andNoid Upon
the trial. alter the defendants had put IN evidence TEND
ing show fraud in the assignment, the Court dismissed
Tt Il vas AZ Sya IN iS appeal, "a 10Th sGes, that on She
morls Of the each was entitled TO ludgment-the
plaintiff on the ground that fraud was shown-the de-
udant on The ground hat the assignment was shoH 20
be- bona fide. Tho chief paints raised were points OF
practice inc dlglq S,Sr s MIN SS e"aSSe the
execution hId not been turned nlad bona, fraudulent
conveyance 81 choses III acIo, slsns On On tno sane
The aun cannot be maintained az an action In aid Of
an execution because the bond and mortgage could not
be reached thereby The complaint IA an aetlon ia
rid of the execution must show that removal
Of the SOSn 5 Sa@9s @e an S1ec e1seo ,1
pr even formal levy create no lien upon chose IN
action Which j. not liable to pe soId ON execution Ire
have not exhausted their legal remedy The night oil
ing xhaustcd his legal remedies without being able to
obtain satisfaction of his Judgment The levy OF an
attachment under The Code chattes alleged to have
been fraudenty assigned could NOT alone authorize an,
action 10 set aside the assignment as fraudulent either
before after Judgment In the attachment action The
Sheriff could attach the bond and mortgage, or the
secured thereby, aud his proceedings under the
The plaintiff commended that the suit was not OF the
same natirc creditors action, but one in aid Of the
pTopefty co,abiy in tic hands OF the shlff and the
levy under the eXccOD reverted back to the leyy under
fraudulent, being obstruction that prevented the
Sheriff from executing aud enforcing the attachment ana
settled and was their only means OF proceeding with
safety and that under those decisions, t was not neces-
saIy to walt for the return Of tIo execution
The Court reserved its decision.
M Marsh for pl@atiirs Mr. ArGouS for defendant
Before Justices LEoNARD, CLERkE ana iaGhAhM
STOLEN BosDsS-wHESS THEY PASS br SALE
This was IN action for tbs alleged conversion Of two
Abanycity bonds OF $1,000 each Two Boston city bonds
OF them were coupon bonds payable " bearer ana lES
Tho defendant il broker in Ncw-YOrk. The bonds In
question brought TO him by two personsi the Port
land and Boston bonds BY WR Olbrook the 2lstof
August 1862 aud the Albany bond by one VIM RObinsOn
on the 2jth Of August Robinson Was also broker and
Iobrook was general agent and operator in specula
tive property iobrook received the bonds from Robin
son, and Robinson received them from a man named
Watson. Hobrook and Robinson were each examined
witnesses the trial Watson was present In Court at
the trial, but not examined rs witness The bonds
not traced beyond Watson, nor was t shown how
they came into his hands Inc plaintu proved that
these bonds stolen from his sae on the 18th of july
1862. lie advertised them in Boston newspapers but
neither Robinson, Holbrook nor the defendant ever saw
the advertisement.
Watson with whom Robinson had previously had sim
liar dealings, brought all these bonds TO Robinson as
broker to Sell them or raise money on them he brought
first the Eastern and afterward tho Albany bonds They
were securities readily and usually sold IN the New
York market and ROBINSON took the Boston bonds and
the Portland bonds 60 -Iobrook TO negotiate them, be-
IIobroo an Eastern man. and because he had
done similar businessOr him before HolbroOk took the
Boston aud Portland bonds 10 Parks ascerained what
couldbo done with them, and reported 10 Robinson.
Robinson reported 10 Watson. and then made certain
advances upon them to the latter and received authority
20 sell the bonds Robinson knew that Hobrook had
taken tho Boston and Portland bonds 10 Parks for sae
and when he applied 10 by Watson. with tho Albany
bonds lobrook being out OF town, he went TO Parks d
recty Parks advanced " 500 the three Eastern bonds
70 Iiobrooh, and 200 on the Albany ponds to Robinson.
Holorook aud Robinson accounted to Watson their prin-
epa lVr tle money thus obtained on the bonds Parks
knew nothing OF Watson, nor did Watson of Parks.
Parks met Mr.. Van Antwerp, cashier OF an Albany
pans ~ Neg'YoIk and placed the Albany bonds IN ms
counted for the Coceeds 70 Robinson paying oyer ,ne
whole, after repayng bis 6a eNceP .ent e. one "
The Boston and Portland bonds Parn- SEM sd IN re
Ter, broker IN Boston, by WHOM they NevonS
ordinary way, and Parks paid over tho proceeds
hs loan, to Holbrook less brokerage end expenses