New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-10-01
TIE COURTS.


An opinion has been rendered in the Special
Term Of the Common Pleas, by Judge Barrett, IN the
he the lessee from Mr. Worre % tho RewNoik 1hea
ter long should De mutually profitable 20 hun
ecciiug HIM The decision Is to the effect that tho lease
4, void being indefinite To the term and too un-
certain as amount aud, therefore, that the Injunction
before granted must be vacated.
In the case of the habeas corpus OF George
Martin who as has been ALREADY Gepot t 10 III
ton taty upon charge OF beng CONCERNED IN he TOD
Merchants Union Express Co. In May last and was ait.r
ward arrested upon civil process obtained Dy the Com
pany tho criminal prosecution being abandoned Ia the
Supreme Court Chamber yesterday the prisoners ooul
sell Mr. Howe, stated that the Company. having received
information when ,i9S 'IG sn upon IL pr"eedae
against his client aud consented To his Release oin ar
rest lie therefore willing that the wit OF habeaS
corpus should be discharged Judge Cardozo therefore
discharged tho writ.
In the Court of Appeals in the cases of the
Hope Mutual life Insurance Company AIT. Taylor
eIecu,rE aud the Same ngi Perkins. appeals from jldg
Dent In favor Of tho plaintiff on guarantee notes. were
pany after il had organized 10 be applied to the
payment OF Losses after ali other assets had becn so
applied and 90 be returned when the capital stock accu
INFLATED ont Of pronts amounted TO s2j0o The Company
failed IN l5i and call was made for per cent OF these
was authorized by It's charter 10 receive any notes
except stock or premium notes ana that these notes are
estoppc only favor II insurer whOi thai
he insured the faith OF these notes The Court reserved
The case of Lucy A. Warner, Administrative.
&c. against the Erie Railroad Company before the
Court Appeals yesterday. The husband OF the pantn
In this suit baggage-naser ON tho defendants trains,
killed train through tho breaking oi bridge
over the ConhOcton. Tie evidence showed that tho
bridge fen through dry rot that 1t between nine and
ten years old the bridgonaster had examined the
bridge by tapping and had not discovered the defect
Tho Court below charged that II the Boau of Directors,
by the exercise 81 that skill and prudence which is To he
expected OF persons occupying the said position shOuh
have asc~raned the defect Ia the bridge the failure on
their part TO ascertain would make the defendants liable
The iury gave tie plaintiff 5000 The defendants
appeal, aud claims that an empioyo IN accepting
employment nlw accepts the risks arising rom
the gigence of his coemployes and that the railroad
having constructed good bridge and provided eonpe-
tent men 10 inspect and repair II when necessary cannot
be responsible 10 enploye for the negligence OF
the Others and that therefore the Judges charge was
wrong Even II there some Liability IL could only
arise after notice Of the defect To the Board OF Directors
on tho other hand the plaintiff. admitting AS rule thar
the plaintiff could not recover from the Company for the
consequence Of the negligence OF coemploycs, claims
that duty rested the employer TO use due care IN
providing suitable appliances for the carrying on OF the
business and that the directors either knew or ought
10 have under the circumstances that these app
ances were unn the Company was liabe and that rho
Jury decided by their verdict that the directors Ought Ia
hyo known OF tile Insecurity OF the bridge Decision
reserved.