New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-03-20
SUPREME T-CIRCUT-MARCn I9.-BcfOre Mr.
Justice ~ TiERLAND.

Justice THERLAND.
ALEGEp IT TIl.. h il. z ,l1i,
Plaintiff is a lady who deals III undergarmcnt>,
sud occasionally spocaCs in cheese. She alleges that IN
January 1896 She had lot of cheese dispose Of that
defendant being made aware Of tns fact and that one
plaintiff that Mailet responsible; that he was worth
sud that. II plaintiff would sell Malet the cheese he
dcfendanU would discount Mgilets note 81 80 days for
10 dcitda 10 dseOt We iOs' Which ne refused 10 40,
aud that Mailct utterly refused 10 pay the note when
defendant for the amount OF the note, with interest from
February 10, lS6
The answer is general denial.
Both plaintiff aud defendant testified and their testi
ony usual in such cases, quite contradictory,
above gwen and defendant estfing that he casually
si ' av e and b In iTer to Questions nc m
he knew and that he iefsn99n would trust him, but
,or dd he decndanU agree to discount Maiets note.
Before Mr. Justice IEoxlRD.
a CAMILLA SUIT
william Copeley at. Geonge Gann.
This il dispute about the price 20 DE paid for
iT The holiday season OF is6G The defendant Admitted
the purchase and that they worth 25 cents EACH
ist they we're worth 80 cents cach being holiday sea
son. and also claimed dollar for cut flowers The jury
compromised for them at 50 cents per flower giving plain
Nj. Victory for plutif Egan a Gross for defendant
GIFTS CACst Morris.
OSrst Eequa, Aliains..tiof. al. John ". Sherwood
The defendant, Mr.. Sherwood, received from his
aster. Mrs Kcqua, shortly before her DEATH about $500
I'm United STATES bonds in trust for her children she
stating the time OF the gift that her husband could
not take OF money. After her death her husband
took letters OF administration her estate and sued
Tor the bonds lie claimed that his wife had been sick
for three years before hes death and that during the last
few months her mind was much affected, that when
she gave the bonds ~ question she was, in fact non
pos HeltiiS.
9he jury on the evidence before them negatived this
ples, aud gave verdict Tor Tie defendant
Nj seaman for plaintiff Mr. I1garius for defendant
Before Mr.. Justice CLERKE.
The LAW on FALSE lNPRISONMENT.
Wolf Benedict agt Bernard Wolf
The plaintiff and defendant had some arrange
plentS ina the mature Of partnership Key West On
r0ming this city the defendant charged him with EN-
bezzling certain moneys belonging 20 him The plaintiff
tgas arrested and brought before police magistrate
when aftor some negotiation he signed an agreement by
Which among other things, be agreed not TO prosecute
te was then discharged aud ppder the agreement gave
n0nof ana took receipt on the day after his discharge
Vie claimed that this agreement void, rs obtained
pnder dures anq brought this suit for the false mprs
Rpuient lie further claimed that the money which no
Vas charged with embezzlng ia fact part OF the
partnership property in which 10 had an equal n ght OF
possession With the defendant aud which he therefore
LOuld not have embczLlcd
AZ thc conclusion of the testimony motion was made
b. dismiss the complaint, the ground that the plaintiff
Rad not shown 8an Of probable hui rather the TO-