New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-10-02
TIE COURTS


CIVIL
IN The suit OF Tracy Admx Az t, e, t eng
III iIrnsd COMPANY Tire construction ul 'u ~
bo', - n,esented 90 the Court Tue acl I'D MIL
road corporal ons 20 erect fences OK then liable Tor al
49, ses wi ioh shall be done by thell "3 h t,5
belonging 70 ne TTov Union Railroad, road
nnilt by the Company Of that hahe re5 md ne ocE
the f1H' ,s The plaintiff claims that far construe
ton OF the statute makes ever oprS ter road me
nm it. en- ines under It's own ooh.lVl ~, ~ M
Ius w. a Isn,s literal Interpretation OF me law. Inc
@ ,sorfh SEQ This tho fourth ConIi me case mo
COW Wts va the Court ntnaed that II II decided fOl
IN nlantif Il could only send hin BACK 70 commence
ever again. d;
sni. has been brought In the superior
cn,t nv JohI r walsh appearing a. guardian ior inc
,airtif his minor daughter agalsi DI LEWIS a. S11it
PIP ed 10 have arisen consequence OF hs unsk
S,I and Negligent treatment IN March ias' oI m
I - M nlautg's hp. upon which he performed an
prton as for an abscess while II ia claimed by the
pim have been ATTY tnmoI, ' S"as T tSs
made ay defendant who ~ ms answer e,les w
seeauon OF nnskfalBesS and also that the pdihuh
serionsly injured for oral examination OF me piah
sin aud also for personal inspection on hei Moeu o
Competent surgeons previous TO the trial under seeilon
90, Of the Code The motion for oral examination ~as
Yesterday allowed by Judge Jones, but he declined 70
order the personal Inspection sSsfsIs s t1 Sg n me
sany side of the Court and should not DC allowed as
question VI law
In the Court of Appeals yesterday, the case
a. was called Gen Butler took out letters testalnen-
tsry on the VIII OF s BROTHER Andrew Butler III TINS
county that comfy being the d0lniche o the deceased
creditor having applied 10 the Surrogate, an inventory
was directed 70 o ed and the executor returned 20 the
appraisers <7639l o. as the estate ia Newfork nut ~
d. ame stated that there was other property in
Tho States OF louisiana massachusetts ana Calli0rhA
The Surrogate ordered fnrther inventory lncnung
these assets Gen. Butler appealed from that order 20
ine Supreme Court aud the order being there affirmed
appealed O. tbe Court OF Appea's O0uSel on MS behsI
claimed that such return was useless, as Tie
Surrogate could not ooEuol assets IN other
statute and in,pedly excluded requirement that
the assets "eadea m e inventory be eTSd by En t9s
est T. rcqured W be included In the inventory; that
IA nal4fE y
tuit Without auclary letters the states where they
sro Re car receive them and obtain them where lesl
process and that the Inventory intended
A. AL ad H. final accounting which must lake place
Of the estate before the Surrogate here The Court
what puzzled 70 how the Surrogate wac
MAD, " party pSs III ,,srs 20 iot con "a ,ati, Mr.
DevBn for appellant; dr. Aiken for respondent.
The case of George l.. Marvin agt. lie Grand
Marvin before Ire Court of Appeals tsteIday Inc
dren of Sarah J.. Marvin, VINO died ~ December lN5
viii dated eight DAYS before her death ana leaving
.Hisal'iay al hes tfSPerS pa 1e cca'aS go r % T e
81 parties having lived 10 Buffalo Ar appeal rom lhe
hlfl0ga1cs deSsOh ,'G una .. 1ie lt9 lvsl,.u p.
Judgment Wa cutered that the viii was invalid Prom
this Judgment the defendant appeals, claiming that the
finding o the Jury that there vac restraint Shona nav
been afinnafvey established by the oy1ece ana Mas
net The evidence on which the plaintiff relied belW
was e. the e-ct that during the latter pii oi AeI III.
Mrs Marvin aud woman Of The name OF Dacre, who's.
enmiiy The plaintiff haG incurred lived ~ the house Of
the presence Of Tins woman, until shortly before Dis
met him, that the defendant aud Mrs Daere we're
continually urging hrs. Marvin eerian speech real
addressed Mrs. DacTe, and occasion when they
CLAIMED ne mad been dsrespectfu 20 his mother, AID
that when, finally he did 90 20 see her, they prevented
him from private conversation with her, The de-
PENDANT, the other hand claimed that the V was the
consequence % the plaintiffs Whhal c0lcuct Oh mo
mind OF the mother Decision reserved
In the Gaze Of Bundy, Executor, AIT Bnn6y the only
question the effect % absolute 10 wife OF
TIE tcstsOr with subsequent directing that u
abe left hers property should to the heirs % his
mother Tie Court below decided that thts gave lie
estate sitn puweT the principal II necessary for
her maintenance. The appellant elaine nat the sit was
absolute. 0 it subsequent clause Ycld Icl Icls-alt.
DCcisiUI reserved.