New-York tribune., 1868-04-14
THE COURTS.
CIVIL.


The United States District Court dismissed q
ihsl vestV eed bv the Government against the ship
Jua lawrence under the aot OF 1892 Tor bringing ltO
Ibis onntry TWO wears ago spirits in casks containing
less man ninety gallons and porter IN cases containing
less than ak dozen bottles ~ appearing mat mosl ol
known and il heiug impossible 20 connect the liquor
found on the dock with the vessel the libel dismissed
An appeal has been taken in the case, of
Hatch act Peurnct, which Is partition suit. seeking
also to set aside Will aud deed made by the mother OF
the principal paIics from order sending Issues to be
tried by jury, the grounds OF the appeal Oelhs th o
act Of 1885, under which the suit Is brought does not au
thOrize the sending OF Issues TO jury ana that some %
fact The Court maintained the order but struck out
part Of the issues.
The Supreme Court, General Term, yesterday
rendered the following decisions The Mayor, &C. W..
Dewitt G. Lent and Ohers.-Judgments aihIneu win
costs opinion 10y all the Judges Sutherland dissent
ing Augustus W. Greenleaf ct al ag feei n, a tb
ct s-Judguent reversed and c0mpalnt ulshiSsou
opinion by sutherland j. and Barnard G1s6a now w.
trial granted. costs to abide event; opinion oy ba%
%sayfs IS ad Ag new TRIAL ordered costs abide
event: opinion by Sutherland, d. ana 1,
senting David Banks ct al. agt Olver L. bSaaootin,
Indpmpnt affirmed, with cost; Barnard r. j. dlssenunE
Smith aTt Felt et. aLJudgment atnrmen viii. WIN o w.
re- Rosa2na Burs aSt James W LyonsProGeedi8s lug
affirmed Pitt Cooke agt The stare Ss'n % a. Irdge ar
der affirmed for the reasons s'"Veu OS '"0 'Due0 "
Special Term. - 49,
One branch of litigation commenced IN 1893
for the OF Hermitage Hail. has uSl been eelueu
nv Court OF Appeals. In that year the property was
s6d under foreclosure. the attorney IN the foreclosure
Rut being fhe purchaser. The owner, blr keiiy haue
an arrangement with Charles g. Cornell and FREDERICK
johnson the uature OF which was disputed, nnue
which those gentlemen paid $500 to the attorney ahu
took deed OF the property which was sun subJect 70
mortgage for ST 500 In 1860 Mr. Reilly brought SUIT 70
determine whether the purchase by those gentlemen gave
them title to Tie property or 0nY an eqta3S q ps
as mortgages. Tie Court In that year. declueu aEas
him. He was however, still In possession, anu '1ee W
efforts TO dsposseSs him as tenant OF the mesS ,osd
nell Tor his assignee, Mr. McMannJ ana johnson iasE
FOR want OF prO0f that he their tenant On fourth
EFFORT however. tho Justice took the judgment OF M ,he
Superior Court proof Of the tenatTy ana 9usteu M
Reilly Sr w. Dodge. Mr., Reily's counsel, appeaed
to the Supreme Court 10y ccrtorar VINO reNseu 'at u
sso& & an No. gSSed % me r c6uns 5S II for the
peacd from this dccIssion to the Court OF APpeals a
in 1882 and in 1854 Mt Reilly m e S Sur pocd NoW in
1865 the Court OF Appeals at1rms inc deeIsou oi to
Supreme Court. and directs Mr. Reilly or raller nlS
children to be restored to possession OF the premises
In the Supreme Court Chambers, the case of
Won Hoffman agt samuel Ward was up on motion 10 ds
solve injunction. Mr. Wards sOon sanuel ward Jr
some six months after Mr. Ward out letters Of ad
miniStr alton his estate. The deceased was then
titled legacy from another relative OF $lOOO SUD
s0queny the defendaDt's wife died. ana HeI WILL H.Cn
gave the plaintiff al her property in trust Tor her
for life aud after her death foi her ster I W as M
his property Mrs. Ward, his mother Tnese Wits hs
defendant contested, aud the plantin hayihg asHeS
for a commission TO France 70 take PROOF, oI enVn
will the defendant opposed the issuing or such cOms
Fion as 10 his sons will until there should be some person
authorized 10 represent the estate Some months a1ter
the defendant TO collect the legacy due 10 MS
sons estate The plaintiff then commenced an acuoh 20
stay his proceedings until the probate OF the WILL aud OBJ
tsied an Ipinncon 10 that effect The present motion
Is 70 dissolve that Injunction. ON the ground thst tue
plaintiff has been guilty OF great 1dch6s bOth IN
The sons viii and in prosecuting the proceedings before
the Surrogate and that the defendant having gNoh a
PIE bond administrator there Is no reason Tor sHcn
Injunction The plaintiff claims the continuance OF Tue
Injunction on the ground that II they shall establish the
wills he will entitled at once 70 receive the money ana
that thus the additional expense and ronbe OF aVIng
the money pass through the administrators hands wlu
he avoided. Decision reserved