New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-10-03
The COURTS.
CIVIL

The Supreme Court will next month have
,out terms Two circuits the first Of whehf also Court
OF oyer and Ienaner 20 be held y Justices BarnSLu emu
iand in some not yet assigned IN the new Court
House, and tine Chambers when r' no @ d 10y
want OF Judge aud The jnrofs summoned Tor thd' part
are requested 10 attend Pafti
In the ease of Sands, Receiver aRt. Newell
and Others the question IN dispute Was, whether TIE
Ttna Insurance COMPANY OF Utica was authoiledto E
rc,ye premium note with but onetweDtieh OF cash
navoei as allowed by the act OF ISis Fought under The
general act OF 1853 to have received ~ cash Ins
st s on note for 81 $50, which sC1 so only was pad
in cash and the defendants clam that the Company was
nor authorized 10 IT, and II therefore VOID
Decision reserved
In the Court Of Appeals, the case Of Mat.
tbcws agt Roberts argued ease growing OUT .,
caTeessness IN making the alhdsvs Tor te eSSuoh ~
rental Of that building for year. amounting 10 lhss
sum The defendant claims tat Inc an,n on "t fri
mat lie plaintiff was the landlord OF the premises ana
that affidavit Of service Is nsnolenr hme ~ lie
C0nrt thought SO, aud directed the fcsuluon VI e1
premises defendant The Court OF Appeals reoer'oo
its decision. - N.
The case of OMara agt. The Hudson River
Railroad Co. involved tho same question: son oi ,ne
plaintiff killed while siosslng ING uaSs ,f,n
no,h he an engine the west track was gong SOUTH
The ran hiding the engine I'LL the boy started to cross
Ihe Jnly g'd the d eiendats claimed that this
ye Judge said II this point was not faisea a, .o
trial coud not be considered here ana as " din ot Az
man that II was the yexcd question: the rule of dam
p ges IN saeh cases is not likely be passed
I'm the Court of Appeals an appear was ~, ~ Bugeu
g., the case Of Gonzalez, ADMINISTRATIVE against Tie maj
lem Railroad Mr. Gonzalez got OUT OF an UP Tram ~
west Mount Vernon, 20 the track or the down lrs
Ms f,sin was minute late and the express Tram conng
Avn M that instant threw him under the tsil ne hu
inst left His widow recovered Bo ana tne ueionua.
Jn,eaied rhe main question was whether M. 6oh2hieh
w guilty OF negligence In not looking for the coming
train ouestion which Judge 6rover sad hsd Deen
tIty ti,ns discussed In the Court OF Appeals since ho
took his seat there and much On Inc pchch AZ Oh ING
bar, Decision reserved NM rtlf..-r.. - -
A sut has been brought in the Supreme
MOfrseey agAiist
SSsries' n. Murray, John A. Norris john Anderson,
,,aynstelh Benjarnn Wood. john McCo1ie, Davia ~
Reed Jacob Bauch, francis King, Abraham worms
Henry Cotton, Reuben Parsons, Marcus a; ihttei
t,eni.nln 81 Halsey, James Watson, FRANK Woih anu
~ luminous Charles II. Murray ana Lewis DAVE,
T,,s,ccs &c The suit IL brought ny the pishtin aganst
~ Farmer associates in the lottery business anu grows
n, NJ se by hm 10 simmons of ms shnrcs ~ Decci'
her 1861 AT That time the lottery rights or tne
MIssir Kentucky Delaware ana 1eorsa WIZ o, uy
an association Of which some OF he deisn's VIZ
members There were u5 shares, olvIoou IN lonv"s
Worrssey 2Gb Murray, 10; Anderson ~, az r.
s,owsrt IA: STANLEY, 6; Bernstein, - wooa, "; NC
Coole, 8; kcad, 8; Baueh, hns, =, The sais Nv
snnmons the balance about ~ snares. AZ" g. '"
Mn,pssev to Simmons OF his 26t shares i9r
summons was 10 pay t2i2OO0-tSenO III chsD anu .no TO-
.nce I'M notes of 5000 each. falling uue y" S 20
,non,hs IA was prov ided tIat failure 10 pay any -
,nese notes slOuld forfeit the amount pasVou,y p",
and return tho shares 10 Mr. MOrrissey Inc bot.s
naid dawn 10 May, after which simmons hauo ~ "
Eorrssey brings the present action ~ tne a ., has
Foreclosure and 1T the same time claims tDa' 'e'0 "'