The New York herald., 1868-11-17
NEW YORK CITY.
YHE C0TRTs.
The ALLEGED Naturalization Frauds.
N~rann ana nlatchforA


AZ the opening OF the court yesterday Judge
Nelson asked the United States District Attorney
Mr.. Courtney, II he was prepared to 60 on with Q
csse from the list on the calendar Of those alleged
fraud caseA
Mr. Courtney replied that he had been called away
90 washington on Wednesday last, that he had only
returned yesterday morning and consequently he
Vas not prepared 70 60 on to-day ~ he had been,
INTO the cases so Is to select one for trial. He did
not know what course the opposition intended 70
pursue, whether to demur to the indctmenG or move
70 quAsh or 20 on with the trial.
NJ. stougnton, for the defence, said that ne had
hsy wou m rsss ss ina ons anS
perhaps, with more convenience to the court, by
motion 70 Quash. Counsel thought they would De
able TO get all tho Instructions needed FOR the trial OF
the case In that way; so therefore they were pre-
pared TO 90 on whenever the District Attorney
Judge Nelson-The question as to the construction
OF the statute or any other general question going
TO the root OF the case can be heard on the motion
70 Quash, and - to any Incidental questions that
may arise in the progress OF the trIa-on the ques
ton Of evidence or otherv isethese. OF course win
be disposed OF by the Judge who tries the case.
The hearing OF counsel In the case was then set
down Tor Tuesday, Oath inst.
The ssAfter Dark,' Lifigation-Nibio's Garden
W. Bowery Theatre.
Before Judge Nelson.
Henry D. Palmer cs John z. AcD0nough.-This
was an application, eZ pa,teto some extent, for the
tssung Of an Injunction, rather reinstating an In
junction. The facts set forth are:-An action was
commenced on the 11th Of November last by
the defendant Palmer, one Of the proprie-
tors Of Nblo's Garden, by applying for an in
junction. which was granted by Judge Barnard,
enjoinng the Defendants the propretors ad interim
OF the Bowery theatre, from performing the comedy
AFTER DARK" at that theatre This Injunction was
November ON tnat night the play was withdrawn
nom the boards. The defendant put IN no ap-
tion; but on Saturday the defendant went before
@ovsl Of the Injunction q the unised States
defendant Was NONRESIDENT q ' the state. % Judge
sutherland granted the removal Of the Injunction to
ss r. the
the operation Of this removal advertised the re-
sumption Of the play for last night. Plaintiff sets
enloning the defendant from going on With the play
Mr.. Fine, counsel for the defendant, opposed the
application on the ground that he had not been
MS e pa ws s the motion T. was
court and therefore had not had time given him to
Judge Nelson said that this court never granted
m1uncuons without notice, and he did not intend to
interfere with the business Of the court for the
venence Of the parties this case BESIDES he did
comedy TO be played.
Counsel for the Ilaintn said they only asked for
authorities In support OF his motion. He asked that
as counsel for the defence argued they had not re-
eeived notice In time, the matter be ordered to
stand over I'LL Tuesday and that the defendant In
me meantime enter into stipulation not to play the
comedy until the case be heard ON its merits.
Judge NelsOn-This Is . new question. The gene
Yal rule 10 where proceedings are illegally taken in
sui the order as It before stood remains operative
case remains valid till set aside by an order Of tins
court The court would like TO look ar this question.
Inc dlnerence IN the point at issue here and the
quoted by counsel s that the injury here is not r-
Demediabe. What Is the play7
Counsel for the plantifr-"After Dark and the
main point for consideration Is the fact that COM
pAinant himself Intended to play it for the first time
tonight In Nblo's Garden and 1t OF the greatest
Importance that anything like an Infringement OF his
rights be stopped. 7rf-
Mr.. Fine, counsel for the defence-we claim q
right paramount TO the plaintiff and he believed 1t
WAS lust claim. The defendant here had pre-
Intends TO play it tonight. We claim it is
dnerent piece; that Dion Boucicault, the author
OF one play, and another party, the author Of
another play Of the same name, gathered each the
BY the defendant McDonough is as original as the
other. We claim that our piece ia from printed
pubncaton In London, and not from the unpub
hshed manuscript. We also claim that Dion Bouci-
eault, not having right here cannot assign to u
resident here right ne does not himself possess.
Judge Nels0n-l am not sure but you re-
strained now from playing the piece. have grave
doubts that the mere removal OF the Injunction TO
restraining the defendant from continuing the
play will, however, allow you to play 1t once
that is, tOnfRht-but after tonight you must stop
the play till shall further hear and determine the
shall be acting OF it in your theatre TIL the
= heard. 4 set down the case for hearing peremp-
torly at eleven O'Clock tomorrow morning,
The parties then LEFT the court. aGt7