The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-04-10
SUPREME C0UaI-sPeC!AL TENN.
An,y.hcr Phase OF the Union Pacific Railroad
Wnr-A Confidential Clerk with $J,O00,-
coo Bank Account.

War-A Confidential Clerk VIII u SC,OOu,~
coo Bank Account.
Before Judge Barnard.
VIM. A. T,oeed Jr., Receiver, DC, Us. H3nry S.
crane, the corn Exchange Bank, ct ai.-This Is an
action brought by the plaintiff, as receiver Of the
property OF the Union Pacific Railroad Company, in
the case OF James Fisk, Jr for Injunction and an
accounting. 1t alleged that the defendant Crane,
who according to the testimony Of Thomas G. Du-
rant, president of the Union Pacific Railroad
COMPANY Is ms lDuranusl con9aeatiai CLERK.
IN his name, to the amount OF nsary S50OoCO0 that
these moneys so standing to the credit OF said Crane
the proceeds of bonds issued by the United states
TO the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and are in
fact the property OF said company.
The affidavit of one Cory SETS forth that he Cory
has been informed by responsible gentleman,
whose name deponent does not wish to divuge, that
there Is now standing 10 the credit or Henry >.
Crane, the defendant, on the books OF the Corn En-
change Bank, between $4,000 600 and $1,000 000 but
whether trustee or in his individual right ana
ownership deponent liz not informed; that deponent
believes the statement and Information OF his In
1Ornant and places the greatest reliance In sand
statement as to Its truth and accuracy.
Upon these facts application for an injunction was
made TO this court and the application was granted,
enjoining the defendant Crane from in any way
transferring, settling, hypOthecatng, loanng or
disposing OF any moneys that stand In his name on
the books OF the BANK, and also restraining the
bank from paying, certifying issuing any checks
upon said Cranes account or from allowing any
moneys belonging to said Crane to pass from their
possession until the further order of this court.
Remarkable Case Of Piracy OF a Trademark.
Benjamin A. arnold and another rs. John D0uel
ana Ouers.-Ths Is an action instituted by the
plaintiffs who are the present members OF the firm
Of p. 4 J. Arnold, OF London, to recover damages
for ana restrain the piracy Of the trademarks and
the manufacture and sale OF limitations OF their cee-
brated writing nuid and copying inks by the de-
PENDANTS, who firm doin. business in this city
under the name Of Richard Il. Dovell's Son Co.
Plaintiffs alege that over forty years ago their mud
by T. a. J. Arnold, OF London, whose business plain
trs have continued, and to whose rights AZ owners
oil such INKS and labels they have succeeded That
their manufactures have become well known and
are largely used throughout the United states
and Great Britain. That the defendants, wei know
ing these facts and with the intent to cheat the pub
he and deiaud the plaintiffs, have for long time
past put up, prepared and sold limitations Of PLAIN
TINS inks IN bottles, and with labels precisely SINH
Lac to those OF the plaintiffs and even prating the
label signed by plaintiffs cauoning the public
against limitations. Much evidence was produced
on the trial. both documentary and oral by planiis
u maintain their case. Defendants introduced no
evidence and attempted no defence, simply making
painlls prove tneir case anu ten raising iegai o.
perpetual injunction. AZ PRAYED for by plaintiDs.
granted, and reference ordered to assess plain
iiGs damages ana ascertain the amount OF the sales
OF the spurious articles. n. b. Hoxie counsel Ior
plaintiffs
Action for Personal Injuries.
Baker rs. Byr1e.--In this case the particulars OF
which were reported in the HERALD some short time
ago Judge Cardozo Mt the circuit term, n0n-suited
the plaintiff who yesterday, on n case and excep-
tions moved for a new trial IL Will he remembered
shat the plaintiff alleged, sustained serious inju
rics by falling down the hatchway of the defendants
barge Pilgrim while crossing the same at night TO
get 10 his own vessel, the Orole. Judge Barnard.
after hearing counsel on both SIDES, said that he had
no doubt whatever that the nonsuit was properly
granted. on two grounds-Flrst, that the paintil
Was trespasser, that he had no business on the
defendants boat. and second that he was guilty oi
negligence In cropping about in the dark the urst
deck o: tho barge, where he had never been before
but that he would examine the authorities cited for
the piantif before nnally deciding the motion. II
ma decision reserved.