New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-09-30
CWu

I'm the United States District Court ycSter-
day, return ~ process being made There was only one
nitod states AIT four barrel, of distilled spirits. found
IA The dstilery Of schwartz STEM ia FHy fourth-st
Tenth and Eleventh ayes, and The spirits were
condemned by default.
In the case of John Wilson, convicted at the
Court ~ General Sessions ~ larceny, an appeal was
argued before the Court Of Appeals The defense vas
that the prisoner took the property from his drunken
freud with the intention OF returning IT, and MtcrWaid
yielded Ia the temptation ~ appropuatug IL, thus
inaGins linn gully ~ felonous conversion only. The
Judge held substantially that 10 did not matter weh he
ronous intent arose provided there both oloniOus
iucnt aud act The appeal was argued ON the Eynund
that the intent aud act must coincide m lime. Judge
Grover for the Court seemed strongly VI th5 same
opinion, but the decision was deferred.
The suit of James b. llodgSkin and others.
stockholders. against the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad
Company and It's Directors came up EeserH4y nrior'
Judge Barrett In the Court OF Common P!eas Inc pau-
IN. charge the Directors with making an agreement
with the Southwest and Pacific Railroad COMPANY en-.
tirey 10 the advantage OF the atT ana WIN tehuuS
divide among themselves large amount OF stock aud
the defendants, restraining them from issuing any Stock
OF bonds Since them the plaintiffs claim The INJUNCTION
has been violated and through their counsel Nj Nec.
obtained an order that Mr.. Lew Parsons and John b.
Dckcrson give their evidence before referee 70 be used
on a motion 90 punish for contempt motion was yes
teday made by Mr. Choae, to vacate this order on the
ground that authority existed IN the code Tor such an
oer After discussion the Court reserved Its decision
In the Court of Appeals an appeal was ar
ged IN the suit OF Jane Voorhees, agt George W. NOor
ees Others The husband OF the plaintiff and father
~ the defendant made a will In 1885 giving hs property
consisting Of farm worth about 5000 aud personal
property among his wife aud children, the defendant oh
i,iine tIe moro than his share one of hi, daughters
subsequently married man to whom nc had conceived
great In 1862 being then 20 years Of age, he
destroyed his viii and made deed 10 the defendant Of
his farm. He died In 1868, and his wife commenced
a suit setting forth that her George
mad procured the deed and the destruction ~
The will by undue Influence, by treating him 10 ntoXcat
ing drinks and by false representations and asking that
HE deed he SET aside and the will established The ease
was referred 10 Judge FOlger who found In favor OF the
plaintiff but is claimed that the appellants did not ud
with sufficient cearncss that tho destruction ~ the will
was fraudulent The special false representation urged
was that under the will the left to the daughter
would 20 a her husband This, 10 claimed though
false fraudulent, 10 proved that the de
srctOn Of the Will made any fraudulent repre-
.enaOns ON the other hand 10 contcnded that he
could not look into the questions OF fact that the
referee had found with sufficient cearness that the de
srucOn iraudulenty procured and that the Court
WAS bound by this finding Decision reserved.