New-York tribune., 1868-03-05
TIE CIVIL COURTs.


I'm the Snpreme Court, Brooklyn, before Judge
Lott. People rel Frederick Crelglton agt Chas
schurg Register Of King: County dhs ease came M up
6churig vacate writ OF peremptory mandaus issued
I'm fo 5ermt the relator NewYork reporter, 20 in.
spect the Kings County transfers of real estate Ihe
n Was Issued from NewYork instead OF Kings County
Court II being Schurgs duty to exhibit 10 any claimant
fused 10 permit tho reator to inspect such deeds the
days OF their reception Tho REALTORS affidavit says that
aid with reports OF transfers Of real estate in Kings
County; that on January he was refused the IN
scripts Of tho deeds were offered for pub
lcaton in the aforementioned newspapers the bearer
Office would furnish the on the day received being
day in advance of deponent The affidavit concluded
by saying the transfers procured for publication
New Journals on the day received, being one day
| in advance OF transfers I'm Kings County.
In the Court of Common Pleas, before Justice
DAILY and jury, the case of Amaa Kaiser agt. Leopold
Kaman tried. This was an action 10 recover dam
ages for breach OF promise OF marriage Inc piantn
was servant gr IN defendant employ ABOUT May Soo,
and the defendant smten with her charms sednced her
on promise make her his wife. The wedding day
was named, arrangements made to celebrate the mar
rage. the plaintiffs relations were invited, ana the
defendant had introduced her TO his friends as his in
tended bride The defendant did not deny these alega
tons but testified that one night about o'clock IN the
came home surprise party in Brooklyn. and was
himself surprised finding the plaintiff and his son,
his testimony and partly cOrrobOrated his father This
discovery caused the defendant he alleges TO break his
the jury Judge Dttenhoefer followed him. and entirely
exploded the defendants story as improbable ana n
and rendered verdict for plaintiff for $500 and the
Judge gave allowance to plaintiffs counsel OF $780,
The testimony for the defense in the Sherry
Wine continued yesterday before the United
States District Court W. H. Farwe OF the Govern.
agents sent abroad to detect wine frauds was called
20 Identity certain papers james Bensuson wine et
chant OF Cadz testified that he competed with claimants
there was no market such wines in Cadz,
cognzed market price for them there The case Is stii
which petitioners whose assets will not pay so per cent or
the claims may e their petitions does Sd not eSPe tSd n Sn
from time when the act went into operation June !.
1867 William IL. Little, bankrupt, having filed his pc
tton in bankruptcy without referring any ooparner
ship debts subsequently asked leave to amend his peti
his nal discharge The Register denied the petition and
the question certified TO the Court The United
states District court decides tnat tne Pdther e ee 50
by being brought In notice. under General order
lie deb,s bnt 1Ut so brought i'm Little cannot be dis
charged from the firm debts.
In the Supreme Court, Circuit, the case of
MARQUIS d. J.. Siarkey agt Ellis Franklin, involving i'm
trial The plaintiff seeks TO recover 5OO damages The
defendant sold him 500 Of New York State seed to-
bacco In 1867 for $4,000 and 1t is alleged that so
turned ont 10 be OF inferior quaty that the tobacco
was received SO cases were found to be scraped and
newly marked The defense Is that Philip Falk IN
duced the defendant who was then wealthy man, TO
speculate In tobacco. OF which business he wasimorant
aud that Falk purchased the tobacco in Syracuse, and
baccO that when defendant to this city Fak make
corrupt bargain with plaintiff whereby plaintiff agreed
pay and did pay Fak 81 900 for inducing defend
ant TO sell his tobacco to the plaintiff at great sacrifice.
by fraudulent representations to the state of the
bacco market The defense is further that this
brought by the plaintiff and Fak to extort money from
him. The plaintiff Sharkey-whO was brought into court
ny the Sheriff from Ludlowst JAIL where he has been
imprisoned for year past--was the first witness. He
admitted the payment TO falk of $1,000 hut denies
conspiracy Adjourned account OF the sudden sickness
OF u JulyInan.
In the United States Supreme Court the case
or The Mayor, &c. OF Nashville agt VIM. +, Cooper
the act OF Congress approved March 1885, entitled An
act m relation TO habeas corpus and regulating Judicial
proceedings IN certain cases. and the amendatoy act OF
lG6 Cooper brought his action In the Circuit Court OF
Davidson County to for timber cut from his land
and for taking his fences &C. during the Rebellion the
defendants filed petition for the removal OF the ease into
the Federal Courts under the provisions OF the above
acts and the case was dOckeed In the Circuit Of the
United states On motion the Judge ordered the to
DO stricken from the docket OF that Court and this s
writ OF consequence OF such order. The petition
In the case sets forth that the defendants were
not the customary officers OF the Corporation elected
under Its charters but the Military appomtees OF the
Government appointed by the then Military Governor,
the lawful military purposes OF the Government In It's
efforts TO suppress the Rebellion I Is alleged that all
the acts complained OF done by the acting Mayor
aud Aldermen under orders from the Military Governor
and also under orders OF the military officers OF the
United States In command at Nashville. This cause when
tried will raise the question OF the validity OF such
military appointments" aud the further question.