New-York tribune., 1868-02-22
THE COURTS.
THE CIVIL COURTS.

THE CIVIL COURTS.
The Superior Court, Special Term, will not
be In session today in consequence OF its being the an
YersaIy OF the Birthday OF Washington.
Petitions in bankruptcy were fled yesterday
by Edward J. Wooey Jackson Hyatt, and George scott
Of this city, aud by Alvin b. Preston and Alfred Maize OF
Ellenvile, Ulster Co. rr .r.r
In the case of Isaiah II. Williams agt Rob-
er Sargent reported yesterdays TRIBUNE, through
typographical error were made to say that the jury
gave verdict for Mr. Williams for $780, 1t should have
been $1,000.
A creditor of Robert C. Rathbone, a bank
rupt has filed additional specifications of his grounds for
opposing the discharge Of the bankrupt The Court de-
cded that some Of the specifications triable and
further says either party desires further testimony In
regard 10 them, reference viii be made to nave u
taken and reported.
In the Supreme Court Chambers, the case OF
tho Rosersville and Jehersonvie Tennesseel RaroaS
proceeds OF certain bonds paid into Trust Uop mp way
nS an action brought by the state to e bonds
issued by the for the purpose OF adinS
the state now claims that the bonds have been USED Tor
other purposes. Decision reserved.
In the u. S. District Court in Bankruptcy,
Judge Bschfcrd has made me ss ss15S 90 as read as
fellow A question, ioE 6sso Sssf T SfSSI @ m 81 & se q % s S
ei before jury shall be 9re1sht on upon esr9on taken before
ed heard on any SATURDAY IN term At
party upon The other aud the CLERK and
% ss. % on ~hS se Be srsSved in e order ia which
the numbered according to General Term Order No
In the Hudson County Court of Oyer and
Iermntr yesterday, Judge Darymple, IN charging the
jury IN slaughtenghOuSen nuisance case, said that were
not that the amendment Of the Hoboken city charter
which especially dealt with slaughterhouses, were now
In progress he would charge the jury that slaughter
HOUSES m tneky populated district were per Sc nui
around the WAS sweet as that III the
court ~ present anu some 20 etzens s~Sre tnt te se
was nolsome ana dangerom he would charge the jury 10
lind verdict OF guilty. The jury accordingly found
verdict of guilty but recommended the accused to mercy
More than 80 persons received sentence IN this courty
terlay.
In the United States Circuit Court, before
Judge Snaley heavy CustOm-H0use case is on for
tuaf Bernhard Hutton merchants Of this CITY, brought
an acton sCme T ~ h since against 81 augustus nss ses Tas G S
them 20 mm under protest upon inland transportation
made by them from parts Of Europe TO this port
The amount involved IN this suit is only about $1,000 but
By the trial will involve very large amounts On the
former trial the jury found for plaintiffs but the Govern
n the should be passed upon new trial ensues
by consent of plaintiffs The case is still and will take
John G.. Mintz brought an action in the Su-
preme Court to from Casper Thelsen SITS dam
in the New BSMery in June 1855 The defend
ant replied that the plaintiff bought the store from him
was not to take possession until the balance was paid
and he to pay 1t the oath Of that month On the
Offering letJt and sell the goods and he then took
session to protect his own property 1t appeared on the
addition to The $50 cash the price being sSa5 that
taking possession The defendants counsel offered to
give up the note which accepted and verdict
dered for the plaintiff for $50.
The divorce case of Marvin X. Clark against
Sarah Esther Clark before Judge Jones of the sue
ror Court again yesterday. few days ago Daniel r.
Ingraham, jr appointed referee in the The
plans counsel now appears and objects Mr. Ingra
ham aud asks the appointment Of another person. on the
ground that these parties had been before him
another ISSUE and he had decided against the plaintiff
Mr. Compton for the defendant stated that he did not
appear much behalf Of his client he did in behalf
OF the referee He thought that the referee should not
be removed upon the mere caprice Of party and it
would be highly improper and discourteOus 20 dsplace
him without good being shown to his bias
prejudice He could not how his decision against
the plaintiff upon another ISSUE not in this action could
prejudice him in this instance. II lie understood the
facts Of the other the referee could not eonscen
tOusly have done differently from what he did Mr..
Requer the plaintiff said that he had the record Of
the other case aud offered TO submit IL TO the Court Mr.
Compton said no had objection 10 this. The Judge
said he would take the record aud examine it, and he
anything that was likely to prejudice or bias the
In deciding this he would appoint another;
but there be something than mere dislike to
= referee to justify his removal