New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-12-27
THE CIVIL COURTS.

| In the case of GOtty against the Controller, in
relation 10 market stands. Judge Barnard has dis
license occupy market stands crates no tenancy
but IA reyocabc At the VIII VI the CONTROLLER ana Without
notice.
Jnmes d. Paw had petitoned TO he adjud-
ca Ted bankrupt with opposition from his cred
ors ON his examnaiion question atQSe MneneI n
could be examined relative 70 debt whth was hrrru
by the Of limitations The Judge dtcretd that ~
country, the PROBABILITY of the debts OF DnnKrnpt must
De- cor nrd 10 debts not Ouilawed IN the respective
disticts IA Vhch the law operates
Tho Government sought to condemn as con-
traband of war Of military g.untlets shipped TO
the South during the Rebellion In violation 81 the fres
dents Proclamation The goods were seized In January,
100 .. the ship Fung shuey Pier No. 80 North River
They shipped 10y Hcileuheiner Co OF TINS city.
aud consigned 10 s. sOlischer, New-Orleans permit
had been granted for their shipment 40 gloves The
defense admitted that snch arcle worn by cavalry
officers but showed permits FROM tho Marshal
and the Supervising Special Agent of the Treasury ia
New -Orca. To sell them, and, there being nothing TO
show unlawful intent BY the claimant the jury ofueed
verdict in his favor
Verdicts were rendered in the United States
District Court yesterday ~ favor OF the Government in
spirits had been seized nj No 24 Washngton-st AFTER
the impannelug OF the jury the claimants counsel ah
united that the spirits had been found outside bonded
warehouse and that he had proof To show that the
tax had been paid The Court therefore ordered YER
diet in favor ~ the Government The other ease Was
the seizure ~ bbls of whisky NJ tho intersection OF
Feventhave. and Forty sXth-st. John w Bockhorn was
the claimant The Government claimed the forfeiture OF
this whisky on the ground that 10 walcp for sale part
OF Il not properly marked branded aud tie rest un-
/
no a1 had been paid The Court held that under the 4Sd
section o the Revenue Laws the jury must hnd for the
Government
Judge Hearne yesterday heard an interesting
case between and Plattner The action was lhst
ued by husband for the loss or services ana
conpanionsp OF his wife, and actual expenditures ia
consequence oi injuries received by the WIFE, oecasoed
through the gross negligence Of the defendant Inc to
lowing testimony elected at The trihl' Ihat hrs
Greye plaintiffs wife, while passing defendants store IN
Bowery between Great Jones and Fourthsts IN Jhnu'
ary last was struck upon the head by cross beam from
a dlapidated awning frame spanning the defendahts
sidewalk and feed PROSTATE upon the pavement sus-
tanning such Injuries as connne her 10 her bed for three
weeks and obge her 10 call In medical and other assist
| Ance Defendants counsel endeay0red 10 throw the
liability OH the landlord OF the premSes occupied ny tue
defendant but after hearing the arguments ana annoi-
ties of both counsel Judge Hearne gave Judgment III
| favor OF the plaintiff for $500 ana costa
The Northern Railroad Company, corpora
ton organized 1884 but which has been supposed 10 be
merged i'm the Ogdensburg aud Lake Champlan Railroad
Company has made motion for nn injunction To restrain
the defendant from paying dividends on ltS common
stock aud from issuing preferred stock The action u
brought for tho purpose " setting aside all the trans
actions on which tho Defendants incorporation was
founded and the planth claims "a be equahy entitled
10 tho track rolling stock, Ac now held by the DEFEND
ant Mr. PerrcpOnt, for tho plaintiff, argued that the
dividends question were part OF the very nhd Ia con.
rOyesy and ought not 10 be paid ont 10 the prejudice OF
the DlantH pending suit MesSrs. Evarts ana Dudley
FIELD for defendant argued thar the plaintiffs papers
did show plausible ground Tor III cai mat tue
Court should interfere, before Judgment, with the
defendants regular business, aud that the deiendantb
sOckhoders having taken their stock I'm exchange for
bonds Of unquesOnRble validity. binding the plaintiff II
ia claim should DE proved the amount 20 bee paid to
them by way OF dividend would not equal the amount
hioh would be duo interest upon their bonds. Inc
Court took the papers and reserved its decision.