New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-01-17

negotiable instruments, transferable by delivery ana an
the rules Of Law applicable TO negoate paper, apply 70
cGN ne q'slil,es q eomegegt peper" The rules 70
them before maturity in good faith aid for valuable CON
alteration, holds them by tito valid against al the
The Court reserved It's decision.
Mr.. Parker for appellant hIr Emott for respondent
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GENERAL TEEm-JAs. Is.
THE TRACK IN wARREN-sr.
The People and ne p Hoo RIVER RAILROAD Company '
The plaintiffs obtained an injunction against the
defendants on points sufficiently appearing In the follow
ing opinion The defendants appealed from the order
susain h5 egn 9 inc s foonq I Se en sas,
of DAILY, Il. j. An Injunction was granted IN this case
restraining the defendants from extending the track Of
their railroad through Warrenst. to Broadway. II Is
very clear that the defendants have no authority TO do
lion. tNihau sgt sharp, q, n " 6l3 Laws 81 X Y.
1884 g. s23 Laws Of n. Y 1860 5 I6) By the first SEQ.
Hh Of S0 TO G Construct railroad between lie Cites arg y
Albany and Eow-YorlS commencing IN the City Of
tained, with power to construct such branch
branches for depot and station accommodation. 40
fourth section declares that the eloay be located on
any of the streets or avenues Of The city Of New YORK;
westerly Of and including the Eghthaye, and or west
ery of Hudsonst provided tue assent Of tine Corpora
that the defendants shall not infringe upon tho rights or
privileges OF the Harlem Railroad Company BY using any
track line Of the road contiguous to alongside Of
their track nor by running tho island Of
New-York than tho Eshthayc; and Huisonst The
the space designated by tho act as that within which ihs
railroad may be located ia the streets avenues Of the
citythat Is, Oh westerly OF the Egb:aYe. and Hud
sonst, and the limit OF Hudsons -, think, fairly
it may be that branches may DC extended fos
depot station accommodation beyond that west
soi-st were continued on the same parallel az
st presents the river That this Is the fair construction
terrain doubt Tie construction for which tbs defend
ants contend would entie them whenever Trey hougm
their business required it, to branchea through any
part OF the city below Cnambersty the naTfOwest tls
most crowded with vehicles and tie most esseeal i9s
business purposes Of any part Of the city, which could
never have BEEN my Judgment tho design OF The Legs
atqre in the enactment oil ts p4yo1 NSf "ss nnS
upon the consent Of the Harlem Eairoad me YrOM9'
ton against running to that roaG han the Egbt
ave. ana Hudsonst smelely feili " ~" tle.
ViOus clause IN the act prescribing the nt3t0h O' tns
defendants route The compliant aVei5 I[ ins raSs
with the track Of the plaintiffs aud affects helr
which sufficient 10 eDtitle them to come into Court Oh
Equity and ask for an injunction.
The injunction properly granted ana TIE order msas
at Che Special Term should be affirmed
A. II. Lawrence, jr and Dir Robinson ior respondents
sPECIAL TERN-JAS 15.-Before Judge DAILY
VIOLATION OF TRADE UNION ASSOCIATION kJLLs-PEN
ATTY MAY BE RECOVERED.
The Master Stevedores' Association agt. fetcr n
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. lisa member OF plaintiffs corporation
which adopted bylaw that there should be no variation
felt of Is per cent the amount Of the bill for such WORK.
be collected in the name Of the corporation ~ process
road iron vessels at 80 cents and the
oSs at he Is Therefore liable 70 item for the
of s25, and they bring tins action 70 recover inst
Tie defendant demurred mainly the ground that
the bylaw was Illegal because the object IL was designed
nG DsIy st the close of an elaborate opinion decides
that there was nothing in the bylaw inconsistent With
e STs oper mode Of enforcing bylaw Is b. pecuniay
penalty for the corporation cannot etnef dTecty or M
other Sorpoe interests for the breach Of IT, This
not bylaw IN restraint Of trade for 1t imposed no 70.
strant upon party which IL not Beneficial 10 the 9TH
es and II had not been shown rreudcal TO the interests
Of the PSS 0Sdr COUNSEL eq Se
TRIAL TEE yd..sa 5 Judge sj DAILY
TIa case "a brought by the plaintiff to $4,000
DANA geS from the defendant for entcng swDe 10 eave
her home in Chicago, and for deprying MIN OF her SER
The plaintiff testified to the fact Of his wies Disappear
R@ n dS% sa SF Ser d The National IL THE city 4
company with the deiendant that no tracked her om
rest OF the defendant
The story Of the defendant IS that being in Phlade
phia on business he put up at the United States HOTEL
while there lady calling herself Mrs Freeman intro
TIM" observation-disclosures ana as WISHING TO proceed 10 New
York to find some friends whom she mad mere tnatn
escorted her 10 NewYor and took her TO the NATIONAL
Hotel AZ which place he well known, having stopped
there ut different times for tie last ten years hnI ne en-
gagged for her, and then left the hotel bushes.
keeping hun away from the city for three or four days;
on his return he found Mrs Freeman stu at the NATIONAL
that r6e should seek boqrdIg she protessed dsstrs to
30 70 Is Hotel to ~ which place hs SSEpss A
Went with her 10 The ladies' parlor. &ad tbers
left his umbrella and coat while converting with soms
friends on the pavement, Mrs. f. beck0ned him from
Inc balcony 10 come up; he up and while in CONVEX
saon with and another lady she excused herself for
short time he was arrested the evening ~ Eares
Hotel, the plaintiff Mrs. Freeman, and the plaintnrs
conn s Nr p b. Ross, being present; upon mquiring for
his coat and umbrella Mrs r. said that they were In her
ROOM and brought them TO hs; bis way 10 prison be
was solicited by AiIs F. and Mr.. Ross to settle Win teS
plalptf hut refused 10 do The next morning Mrs r.
visited him I'm ia before breakfast and wanted tofmov
what he would give to settle the matter; after seVerh
visits she proposed to settle for AGO. which defendant TO-
fused -.
No evidence was introduced the part OF the PLAINTIFF
20 show improper intimacy between his wife ana the ds
PENDANT.
Te Jury after an absence Of five minutes returned
verdict for the defendant, the Court granting sn allow
ouea NJ