New-York tribune., 1867-06-26
SUPERIOR coUTT-rmAL TERM-Before Justice

rTNNsYLvANIA on WILL CLAIM.

Barr Cgan ID, Jane, II. Kinor,.
Tho plaintiff sued 20 recover 500 money adj
TN and Thos H. Wilson had been Jointly interested IN
two lots known as Nos. and II on the Farrol farm
sunk n the latter lot; that plaintiff had received money
sales OF oil and other moneys for the expenses Of
failed 10 account that he had sold his interest IN lot No
y and the craft well for 5000 gold, and lot No. II Tor
thirds interest and that Wilson had assigned al ms
moneys received 20 the joint account in SINKING and
operating the we'll and also claimed at before he sold
otNo II Defendant ahd nsoi nau inaas nI' ~
lot No II 10 him. Defendant on the witness staud dohed
Verdict for plaintiff for ssss7.
John T. Parsons for plaintiff: Mr.. Chathed and Mr..
Fullerton for defendant
THE DANGERS OF TIE SIDEWALKS.
Alexander Irvine at Charles AID Frederick WOOD ani Jonathan o.
The plaintT in walking along Broadway on the 3D.
Of October Is3 stepped the OF one % the or-
nary openings for coal In 'front.' OF the store OF the dc
fcndants Woods No Broadway and the cover slipped
and turned under him and he fell through. He struck ms
knee aud tho blow according " Dr. Qnackenbos caused
such Inflammation In the knee that nothing but his Sood
constitution resulting from regular life enabled them
To save his leg and probably MS NE AZ was after
partial auchyOss Of the Joint having occurred ana ths
could not be- more than partially reneded 5y severe
PEELED 10 give up his business. and now asks $1,000 dam,
not onenfth OF what 10 should have been. The hght
triangular one for the plaintiff had sued not only
owner Mr. Foster, and the stnamod defend
ants claimed that they were not liable. as
the lessor had covenanted keep the place in enantabo
repair and Mr. Foster who had acquired the title subse-
quent the lease claimed that he was not liable as he
had not dxed the vault cover and further claimed that
the neglect the cssces In not fastening the cover was
the real cause Of the defect In fact the complaint
General Term Who ordered new trial were divided as
the liability Of Mr. Foster The defendants arguments
aside the legal points, merely In mitigation OF
Mr. inrrill for plantifi; Mr.. Nash and Mr. Fullerton
''' N''is SPECIAL TERN.-Before Justice BARBOUR.
THE FILLING UP OF THE SLIPS by DISrIl1ERf
NEfusE. n.,.
This case was brought TO restrain the deiendants
sIip RetWsen fighteenth and Nneteenthsts on the
North River Their dlstllery IL situated between those
state that the refuse from filling up the slip
sothat the water too shoai to allow vessels OF tho
tunnage formerly to come TO the pier ON these
aldavits, the defandant was enoned from allowing the
refuse enter the sewer The defendant dld however
for some days the injunction, continue 10 run his
dsery and allow the refuse TO run into the sewer ana
the present proceeding ~ 10 punish nm or sohehps
not obeying the order HIS excuse that no had very
large Of malt wet In the dstery, ana that ne
n 10 tss Ss loss would have been c and
that he supposed he had that PERMISSION ana mat no
offered dredge out the slip. The argument VIII be re-
Mr. Anderson for plaintiff; Mr.. l. T. Williams for de-
THE BISHOP DIVORCE CASE.
This case being called up Tor trlal the plantln' =
counsel presented adayits 10 the effect that she had
unable 10 prepare for trial. some OF her witnesses
being absent IN StanIOrd ana hef nuhDahu nh'nB
fused To disclose the residence OF witness the person
with whom no Is charged with having committed adul
terry nsked that the be- put over tho term Inc
attorney for the defendant read counterahdaylts IN
which he denied OF the allegations OF the plaint
and stated that he had refused 10 give the evidence or
the witness alluded 10 because that lac believed tat the
annoy her plaintiff having already published her photo
graph with lbeOus remarks. The Court granted the
motion, not the grounds stated In the ahdai pnt
because the plaintiffs counsel having been evidently
nised TO the practice In this Court, and being an
fair 10 force the plaintiff To trial with total want OF
preparation lie doubted his power or the proprety OF
ordering reference could he grant any other terms
would be proper in other cases. In case between nus
band and wife. =