New-York tribune., 1868-10-09
THE COURTS.


In the Court of Appeals yesterday, the case
OF Murray agt The Central Railroad OF New-Y0rk
h6g.s by .ns St PPeSi e a eeSPed y though %
fecve gate on the track OF the defendants, sud va
killed. The appellant claims that II was contributing
negligence TO put the horse in lot with such gate and
that the defendants were entitled TO notice ine re-
spondent claims that the statute makes railroad c0mpa
MES liable. independent Of all questions " negligence
Decision reserved.
In the Supreme Court Circuit, yesterday, be-
fore Judge Geo G. Barnard the matter of the people
the relation Of John j. Bradley aud the said JOhnJ
Bradley against Thomas Stevens, was called up Tns
Mr. BRADLEY against the defendant a. President q the
CrOton Aqueduct Board 10 which position the plaintiff
appointed in December, lS66 on MOTION of NJ
Marsh. the trial postponed f Monday. Oct. H.
Both sides expressed desire 10 nave The 20 to tho
General Term as soon as possible
In the L. s. District Court, in Admiralty.
yesterday the collision suit Of The Albany Insurance.
Company agt rhe brig Narcisse came on for trial The
lbelants the insurers Of 5000 worth II wheat on
board the canal Flour City. While this vessel
endeavoring get alongside OF pier No s.. " r. the
10th Of July last she colded in some manner and sunk
5000 worth OF the wheat being lost Lioelahs alege
that the vessel collided with an anchor, improperly ,
cation and that the vessel did not strike the anchor
in question. but that. while being Improperly naysated
struck other object IN no way connected win the
Narcisse, and thus fouIdered
The case of John L. Steel agt. Larz Ihlsing
tired yesterday in Part II OF the supreme Court tlr
dealer of Baltimore ordered in May 1864. ~ the defend
ant manufacturer in this city II pianos, which the lie
fendant promised To send him at certain stipulated
price The defendant neglected the order an summer.
sending evasive replies 70 his customers iDqulfes III DC
tober when he declared that owing 20 increased cost Of
labor and material he could not deliver the pianos unless
at advance Of 40 per cent the contract price Tbs
prices with interest, about $si2 aud verdict vas
awarded the plaintiff for S775
A curious question of real estate law was
argued in the OF kelsO, Admr., agt. Cummings
LOulsA W. Cummings devised al her property 10 her son
Thomas If he should live until he 10 a years Of age"
il he should die before thar to her sisters The son
lived some years after his mothers death. hut died be-
fore he was d. Some $4,000 had been accumulated out
OF rent and interest during that period aud the question
raised as TO whether these uceumuations belonged
to the and to his OF kin 20 his mothers sis
tive contingent remainder to the SON and themselves.
aud they would IN point of time, receive the prop
attain it, they presumptyey entitled 20 the
next eventual estate and. SUCH 70 the profits during
the will gave vested remainder 10 the boy, but th' at
any rate he was the person presunptSey entitled to
the next estate. Case still ON argument.
In the Trial Term of the Superior Court,
yesterday, before Judge Jones, the Of Thomas
Berdell agt Edward X. and Alexis T.. McIlyane was
ruary, 1884, to Jacob Bronwer. for month. at
per cent interest upon order drawn BY the deferd
ants, Mcllvane Bros upon John g. Ward, Tor quauly
OF mess pork When the order presented there was
pork at tie place TO the credit " the defendants aad
the order was not honored The defense set up was nat
the pork sold 10 Br0uwcr, but deliverable
until paid for that Brouwer hal said he had sold 70
wanted order for its delivery ss receive is
pay from Bingham that the order had Therefore been
given but It was understood the pork would not bS ~
store To meet il until Bronwor had paid hi bill and that
the defendants in a conversation with plaintiff on the
26h of February, explained all the circumstances 90 him.
The Judge charged the jury that their verdict shond de
pend upon what they found to be the nature OF that CON
versation. and, the jury remaining till late hour,
directed a sealed verdict to be handed N.
The case of Ford agt. James was brought to
aunu adeed made in 1852 Ola lot m tLcc Jno Graham
the then owner, executed q deed 10 one James lor
So Ghe property being mcnmhered to abcnf lls yaihr
his attorney Mr. Spencer delivered u to The brother
James with understanding that ne didn't IKE -
take the property he might get his money back james
got his money back but did not surrender the deed AVID
lt.
executed o second deed 20 Mrs Cena Spencer, under
which the plaintiff claims which deed was recorded aiter
the record OF the other deed There mistake in the
record OF the first deed In the description OF the property
The Court below decided that there had been no valid
delivery OF the deed, and ordered the iet deed 10 bo
Cancelled Counsel for appellant claimed that tho delivery
Of the deed 10 the brother absolute delivery !"
James; that the repayment OF the s2s was nor proved
but IL it could not avoid the deed anc ai u ,hs
plaintiff WAS misled by the record OF the decd theY t
look the Register for damages sustained ~ them l.
Burrill for the respondents argued that thecase was" "
OF clear fraud on the part OF the defendant d. Janes
that the grantee received the decd n rac ahd st
decision of the Court below was correct pce''o"
reserved.