New-York tribune., 1867-03-29


prty should be seized or detained by am officer The
language is 10y any officer or other person.
The Commissioner VIII probably decide the motion To-
asy II he denies the motion counsel for defendant VIII
put IN evidence Tor the defense.
COURT OF APPEALs-MARoH 2s
sRoKERAGE ON CONTRACTS WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
RhpAa Ly'a Executor &C. n ss IR@Pa' sAn' 's Samuel L.
The defendant, on the 9th May 1861 entered into
WI, ton contract with Stlman follows: Whereas
desire to sell the steamers Augusta Alabama Florida
In hand PAID lN Thos. Stillman of tho City of New
SOIk, 90 hereby constitute him. the said stilna my
true lawful agent attorney, TO dispose OF said
either of them at such prices ana on such
terms as may heIS6eT pc agsfa sS bps or assigns 10 per
eent OF the total amount thasad steamers OF either OF
on hc Trial in the Court below it shown that the
plaintiffs docedont suman made several inquiries and
rneut including Mr.. Morgan the Government agent IN
fhis city; but that the sale Of three OF the SHIPS Tor %
500 was made directly between the defendant and Mr.
oit' 81 W c, a - ,aitf consented 10 deduct and the
Jury ionndn his favor giving him verdict for S20SS7
trial il testified That part OF the lnducemet
Of the original contract Stimaus acquaintance with
Inc defddant appeals on the ground that the contract
was one Of BROKERAGE and that the plaintiff did not make
OF aid making the sale according to his own proofs
aud The further ground that the Court refused TO
was made in reference the influence Of the plaintiff
bis frieds o any persons connected win theAdmlnls
tretOl whose duty II was TO act IN the purchase OF
AteImers, and the percentage as commissions were fixed
in Icorence that Influence that the contract is void
On THIS latter point argued that person having
no claim against, but seeking 20 obtain contract frOm
30 executive officer of the Government, and to exert
pPOn him private and personal influence, no matter
bow pure enter into and make the contract, public
policy requires that the officers of the Government
tAond be left free from all such influence TO exercise
The plaintiff replies first point that the jury hav
o s % dvee iSe' by SsGTe M & and F to the e
POINT that there was no allegation IN the answer or ev
denee upon the upon which raise it, and that
not improper bargain for skill or influence TO accom-
& ANY lawful % cPO4 tb o4 PEt R9f IespOeS @PeSS
ent; Mr Cram for defendant appellant
p,..,. EXEsGT4y Me-, no so. Or M5II %lLIs Executor To-
THIS & dispute as to the proper execution Sl Of viii
Samuel Mott the tesiator executed VIII dated Dec TO-
ls1S, With the following attestation clause;
O.. & eS scsd 70 US by the & Samuel Egt to bs Ii,
s vii testament i be then acknowledged each Of Us that he
sd as ih same and we " his request signed cur names hereto
first witness to It, and who died Jan 8, 1853 be-
fore probate. His signature was proved 10 90 and was
ssned c 49 and the testaOr stated about tn time OF
Tie date OF the win, that Andrew j. Hegemans name
nsme was on the win when the other witness Mott
Adam Mott beeamea witness about the date Of the
vii when he signed the paper so folded that he did
sSo l S VIII dTwn Y H. that he the tesstor
bad signed Il in Andrew j. Hegemans presence VINO had
J0sepb o. HegCman became witness at the testatOr's
request about the last of 1868
She paper his will that he had signed IT thSt HE
hame vas omit aud the names OF the testator ana An
II was claimed on the part Of the appellants that this
seuup attestaton Joseph o. Hegeman not In any
Pense good and ttestation 10y Mott wanted the essen
ta ingredient Of his having seen the signature OF the res
tator. To allow proof OF an sdhllssioh 1y .ne
would cOntended, let in all the evils the statute
intended TO guard against L.. A..
The respondents contend that II not necessary i9r the
witnesses al TO sign at the same time That any oeIee
Of OF the witnesses sly supped IN te absence
81 conflicting testimony by the attestatlOn cause 9
That the acknowledgment OF the tesator tnat nc LAO
hRpedHs sufficient. Decision reserY ed.
Mr siIima6Gbr appellant; Mr. AnthOn for respondent
rHE COLUMBIAN INSURANCE COMPANH-sEI-Ofts
AGAINST THE CLAIMS OF LNS0LVENT COMPANIES
BsOge OgOOd and another Receiver k a "m DeSTo0' Ano
another.
This is an action by the Receivers OF the Colum-
hian Insurance Co to recover the amount OF premium
note for Ol0 dated March 1865 on the bark Helress
On the 22d Of November 1862 the "a %
amount 65 On the 22d OF January 1866 the com
pany having become nsOvent Receivers were appointed
On the 9th OF February, 1856 the keceEeIs n
eotce requiring presentation Of claims on the 2Oh OF
March and on day the proofs OF loss were presented
ky the defendants The note In suit became que hach
n isss and this suit was commenced on the 2lst. Inc
policy provides that loss shall be paid IN 90 Gays ateI
hroof and adjustment, they dIseOuntng interest f0I
knticinatnc PAYMENT" The defendants clam the night
10 set of their against the note arguing that the loss
though not payable till later at once on lts happe
ing mutual credit Win the premium Ao'o' "4'44A
the meaning Of the statute. . -. /. ...-. .,o,.
The plaintiffs claim that the right to receive their
alAm did not exist the Receivers were appointed
II not credit Of the defendant which couid De SET OH
by him That he Is In the position as If his loss had
secured after the insolvency OF the company IN otne
words he pay his note and come IN with he rest OF
the creditors with his claim. That TO ihterPret Ie
TAtue otherwise would he inequable 70 other claimants
the dividend necessarily decreased by every pay
ppent In full Decision reserved
Nr ChoatefOr defendant, respondents d. D. q d. flelo
For plaintiff, appellant
pOURT OF COMMON PLEAs-TRIAL TERH-MARcH