New-York tribune., 1867-04-26
SUPREME COURT-GENERAL TERM-APRIL 25-Be1ore
Judges INGRAHAM, SUTHERLAND and LEONARD.

The People rel N Hs Fowler agt John Machier ad 9t9s
The term Of Office of Judge Bull OF the Flllth
District Court Of this city extended by the Legsa,
ture by q special act But for this act that term would
this act unconsutonal offered himself a candidate
for the office and received some votes, The canyassers
aud locked up ballots. This an alternative man
damus to the to make return OF the votes cast
The Court below after argument on the notion refused
TO make the mandamus peremptOfy, ana rom te OIde
entered that decision the reatQr appealed Inc Court
yesterday at General Ter affirmed the order appeied
THE VALUE or CITY RAILROAD FRANCHISES
William et 4 Avenue Railroad Company
The plaintiffs sue as representatives OF the nine
original grantees from the city OF the night TO lay tracks
I'm The secOndave &C., for 500 OO-the alleged value or
that franchise transferred by them TO the Company Ihis
franchise was granted in 1882 and company was at once
mainly OF the directors After several efforts at
m6ursng themselves for the trouble ana expense tley
had at and the value OF the franchise
meeting OF Nov 49, 1885, resolution was passed 70 issue
10 the grantees bonds 10 the amount OF s2oO on t1e
nth Of November formal transfer OF the grant was maze
10 the Company and on the 20th inc reSouoh OF ue I2
was rescinded AT this time the Company deciaIe9
dividend though 1t Is alleged, lhey were 'heH Io"y
on the cd Of March, 1886 fresh resolution was passed
trs was rescinded by resolution of March T. 1t is
claimed by the plaintiffs that the resolution OF Nov ID
followed Dy the transfer OF the l7th, ana Dy eohee
use Of the franchise by The company was was eGnliIS, m
which the company could not award by their aeloh on
the 10th of November and Ith OF M-lcl, ana t'V tue
resolution OF the Sd Of March was now promise h0h
which the Statute OF Limitations would begin 70 run,
The action commenced in Dec l6jl, ana va, re-
ferrcd 10 exTudgc R0nney who in last June reported 1T
flNo Of lp
report for s2G79i %, aud the defendants appealed
In their appeal they take the ground that the grant ~
the Common Council was y9ld aS oeng ","G IN 'cS' o t
grant werc void, then the grant was To inc corpora
that the directors who passed ulc7e W.. ~. w
persons be benefited by them, ana TINS made lheH
action void; and finally that the transfer having pee.
made more than six years before the commencement OF
the suit, the Statute OF Limitations had run . 80.
Tie ease argued aud submitted the Court reser'
MT. Edmonds for plaintiff Mr. sossOn and Mr rlatt
~ CHCrIr-Bciorc Mr. Justice NOAH DAVIS
HORSE ~ COURT
Pairchld az Graham.
Plaintiff sued TO recover $50 from defendant on
account OF the loss OF horse Occasoned ny the aeged
negligence Of defendant The facts It appears iroa ,le
evidence that defendants son. While driving MS
fathers truck In sOutht came in contact Win tNO
horses attached to carriage % ana @ o~TI ~ ~ te d
leg Of one OF the horses, through one Nlee oi te &
Injury having rendered him useless.
The defense was concurrent negligence.
ba ay iS tret tGat he did not stop beeanse
be was heavily laden and had clear track before ui,
aud that plaintiff cOud not cross, and should not nave
attempted the track In front Of him; and iur,
thcr that II hc stncss had stopped bis horse womi
plaintiffs carriage, and killed or seriously injured
The Jury brought In verdict Tor palntlu itr $lop
J. l. smith for piainufi Chauhcey ehaHcr lot oe-
THE VALIDITY or PAYMENTS OF DIVIDENDS IN con
FTDERATF MONEY OR BONDS.
wm II sst Cenir. a aoad aud BanIiag Company Of
stock Between July 1861 and January, 1865 the Com
pany declared re guar hfycarly dyidends the aggre
gate amount Of which, plaintiffs stock was $40 The
assignee OF this stock Ia resident OF this city SUIT Is
brought 70 recover the above amount from defendats
The defense was OF twofold character flrst that
sufficient legal demand had been made by planting sec
ond that defanants ready, and always hayo bcon
10 pay I'm Confederate money. -
Ii seems there have been seven dividends IN al The
Board Directors Of the Company passed resolution
the effect hat the last two OF tucso dividend, shun
be paid Confederate money bonds No special action
was taken in relation 10 the first five dividends.
The mony consisted mainly of written deposiIOns,
and the case was trcd by the Court without jury,
After tile had been lly argued. the Court Held,
iu substance. that sufficient demand bad been proven,
defendants having written letter admitting ne Gein9n.l
and Offering TO pay Confederate money. which oner
was refused As the last two called, dividends the
directors having been given full power by the stock
holders 10 take speca action In relation 10 the character
OF the dividends and they having taken such action ny
bonds these were either no dividends ALL If SO con
sidered plaintiff had no remedy but TO receive ms pay
meut v Confederate money bonds. As To the FIRST
five dividends plaintiff entitled TO recover telr
amount legal money, and judgment was gwen accord
john T. BurriIl for plaintiff Mr. Ward FOR defendants