New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-07-17

judge Iugraham has denied the motion 10
I.,,t Conn.y IN Inc .t r-ors, ny Gates. which j.
Ideut!cl. iu principal wItA Tie od suits.
Margaret Welsh, who was convicted by the
McChesuey, and who was granted hy the General Term
Of the supreme Court on apgcala new trial las been
In the Supreme Court Chambers, the follow
ing decisions were rendered. yesterday. Dy IuertHam D.:
Gates AIT Chicago and RJch-I land Railroad Co.. ana
otber,-}l0.lOn j, denied la Ie Geo b. Reed lOr dis
charge from Imprisonment Order, Tor discharge granted
Roberts ct al act. RHueaudcr. 90 aI--AiouoH ior h-
junction denied WIN 80 t.rl.. HdIuhgI "L p.oI,
order so that the allowance shall bt on ~oG costs 90
abide event Crau-tou agt. Plumb, a. ul-Irusccs TO
account. and % reference ordered Sratt ag Gillian,
sof o. UcgdrIck.or-CIse settled Abau, agt. Elmer.
MOTION 10 vacate atJacLmet granted, with $40 costs
The United States Supreme Court II, the
case o. Waterbury Doyle, claimants Of $50 bales 81
under contracts made "Ih l'enei mere i4lo nc oo'o
was within the Rebel lines, have decided That az inter
the act of Congress authorizing the PRESIDENT 10 declare
dent alone grant permits authohH@ trade 10 be car
r!cd Oh across the lines tAay i permits Ioi W., puI-
are wholly void; and that all contracts with persons or re-
atve to property within the Rcb. lines Wlh0uia special
edo the cotton ia question belong 10 tie United States
John Ross and his partners brought suit in
this state against the Union Pacific Railroad Commny
tIeir contract to build the road The summons was
served on one OF the directors this city ana the Com
many mt IN a limited appearance merely 10 contest the
Validity of the service Judge suthcraHd refused 10 pro
oIuce the service invalid and the defendants Appealed
Te uaiutls extended the time 20 appear, ana eu de-
ci0 10 rive any further extension the DEFENDANTS pro
rcG an order extending the time 10 appear III 10 Gays
after tho argument Of the appeal The argument was
then exucccd take place in the January telh I was
Lv consent nut of from term 10 term t no" u l' du
i0urned to October Meanwhile. III the absence OF an aI
Icarauce the plaintiffs in April last entered an OrueI as
On default for reference 10 compute the amount OF
their DAMAGES and the referees report entered Judg
Iueut for more than s. OO0OJO against the company me
COMPANY now ask that this judgment be vacated VII the
argument OF the appeal The plaintiffs say that tley are
quito willing if the defendants viii appear gcneIaly
the real fight being whether the defendants WIZ appear
generally ia this state 10 give undOuDteu JulIsc
non 10 the NewYOrk State Courts, and validity 10 thelf
Judgment or not In his affidavit Nj Ross charges tlai
tho funds tho Company have been so wasteuy uAeu
in certain localities Of which be processes hnsell 10 Dc
able % give parculars that IL would be UNSAFE ior MN
10 try is there The arguments on ms molten Nce
Oh part Of the plaintiffs. that the 0rdtr eAteh9hg e
appear nuty, not being authoIiLeu W Wv
code and at any rate, rs an e1 pafc otueI ht39 M po
ceedings for indefinite period utterly VOlu ulil oho
they had right 10 disregard aud proceed with tnel SUIT
On the part OF the defendants u was claimed tht e
order was IN the power Of the Judge and, II irregular
could be removed by motion. That as stay OF pro
cecdings IL did beyond the next argument day s
than ~ days and that by cOnsentnS 10 defer thc ARA
ment they consented extend the stay Tue Court re-
served It's decision.