New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-11-19

I'm the United States District Court, yester-
day' D,Iose uuAs b5alyios1, ~, o psy ~ W
and which the c0nscatou ~ the cotton was sought On
used by them To give aid aud comfort 10 the Rebellion
tho jury disagreed and were discharged.
In the action of Leonard c. Klinck against
Gardner Colby, George Hughes, Alfred Becor, and 60
ohers-an action Tor lbel ahd malicious prosecution
against 10 NcwlOrk merchants-the complaint has been
dismissed This acton was brought IN the supreme
Court Brooklyn FOR malicious prosecution aud libel The
plaintiff claimed 10000 damages FOR the former ard
$1,000 for the latter His complaint alleges that the de
PENDANTS maIicously arrested him "A charge of
spracy with Folcer Tbbs 10 deraud them. and that
when reiterated 7lht charge, IL j. uo sllhe cas- III
which 10 prematurey announced some two weeks
Tor 5000 damages. final decision has just
been rendered by Mr. Justice Gilbert OF Brooklyn.
prosecution dismissed at his cost and he was Also
nousuted 10 the libel, To all the defendants except
taken subject the opinion Of the Court question
reserved. which question whether the alleged libel
cldcd mat It was privileged communication, and the
sut dismissed 1T the cost OF the plaintiff. Stewart.
Rtch n Wo0dford. Attorneys for plalntin Jernegan'
Hammond Il Cleveland. Attorneys FOR defendants.
\ case involving questions arising out OF the
Rebellion was decided yesterday by the General Term
Hubbard sued Edward Matthews on an Endorsement Of
certain notes given by Brander Chambhss Co, 81
which Matthews Was a member. Both these nrns were
New Orleans firms and In March, 1901 the latter firm
formed To purchase out the former NEGOTIATION
was had aud an agreement made that the latter FIRM
should give s36OOO part in cash part
the older rm the defendant signing for BrAnder,
agreed that the matter should not be perfected
u Brander ST., gave his consent. Brander, sr,
gave formal personal consent but neither did he object
MATHEWS lived IN New orb, and the breaking out
he cut OF from ns rrm. Hubbard took the
his portion Of the assets OF the old firm The
notes protested while New Orleans was stll
under Rebel Dominion and notice given 10 the hmin New
orleans On these facts the referee found for plain
I'm. The defendant appealed the various grounds
hrst that the dissolution of the old firm
summaed aud that, therefore, the notes has
aud that the rausiecnCe OF the assets OF the old rB
for the reason incomplete ana the consideration ~
the Endorsements incomplete, second that the kebt lhon
was cYn aud broke up all legal relations
between the inhabitants of the warning sections.
aud that therefore notice 10 the firm OF the protest
not notice 10 tne defendant; and third, that The
acts Of onlcers of Louisiana during its rebellion
null and void. The Court oVcrrUed all these
Ia the Court the of Merritt agt The Hudson
River Railroad Company argued and decided Ner
utt was injured by ah American Express Company
turning oil from Inc main track OF the railroad IN iud
sOust into The building of the Company and recovered
judgment Tor eco The appellant argued that the
belonged 10 another Company the Hudson River Railroad
Company not liable. Judge Mullin sid that n ths
ground good then any railroad company might by
arrangement with irresponsible parties Obtain the
profits without the responsibilities az running their
The defendant then argued that the plaintiff bound
show nuDatvoly that the switch or turnout belonged
10 the defendant aud that the evidence waH iusuent
Judge ngraham Hhd that under the last decisions az the
Court OF Appeals II there any conflicting
war matter for the jury The Court Affirmed the iudg
mcnt of Tie Court below on the spot