New-York tribune., 1869-03-17
CIVIL.


The suit of Blatchford agt. Ross came mp
before the SPECIAL Term Of the supreme CCnr yesteTda& m &
on oeug n ynnd ~ MD INT there was defect in the par
lies defendant They claim that the American Express
Co. aud the stockholders who had come mo Io
dation both parties Nitay Interested ana "ee eh
tirely uurepresented Decision reserved
In the Supreme Court, Special Term, before
Mr. Justice Cerke was tried The case Of Jane Roose-
This action came up before judge Ielke dUI IA, ~ U S
op The motion It appeared that the plaintiffs clam to be
the REPRESENTATIVES Of deceased brother Of the defend
moneys by their father for their benefit The defendant
IT appears denies their legitimacy alleging prev preri%9HS %
marriage by the deceased The easo was put over INC
teTm
In the Supreme Court Special Term, before
Justice Freedman. was tried the case OF d
the property Hermitage Han under an e19cn,
tion on Judgment docketed against Reilly IN ls5i WINE
the defendants claim under foreclosure sale Of mort
gage made by Reilly in 1851 and attempted 10 break he
between the plalnand Reilly, the mOrtgagor The case
was tried before 10y Judge Freedman and he holds That
the Judgment creditors not having been made parties ana
tlc pun having rendered the amount OF the mortgage
aud interest the defendants are 10 DO considered as
tin for received by them and cancel their deeds
The argument of the question in the case OF
the Merchaus' Union Express litigation whether MI d
aud the suit be continued IN Mr. WiHmsh name not
withstanding Mr. Harriss desire TO withdraw, was
Mr. Williams, claiming that since his cause OF hcton ahu
Mr. WIllams's were now before the Court even II tele
e Cont would retain cognzance Of the IN order
TO do Justice but that there no rregnlarity hr VIII
ams being OF those for whose benefit the suit was
brought, and having expressed ms desire 10 De ade
party TO suit Mr. Porter for the defendants, argued
that there plaintiff and no c~e, and that II
Mr. Williams desired TO prosecute his action he must com
1t as an original action The Court reserved iIS
decision.
In the q. S. District Court in Admiralty was
tried the case OF William Coleman agt. The Steamship
Leo This IS libel by the captain and part owner Of the
soop David Sands to recover ab0nt 5000 Tor damaRe
sunk, through cOding with the steamship Leo, OF the
New-YOrk and Southern Steamship COmpanys liEe near
Governors Island, about O'Clock o. n on the 2th OF
OF the other paTt-One haOf the sloOp, was drowned
The libel alleges that the collision caused by tho un
skfuneBs and negligence Of those navigating tue steam
ef In taking due precautions 20 avoid the slOop Tho
could be at great distance, but that tho lights on
the soOp barely visible at distance OF 6O feet that
soon as the soop was discovered the engines OF the
steamer reversed but before she eoHd bo stopped
the soop into her. and was thus sunk Case still o
In the Supreme Court Circuit, before Mr.
Justice Barnard the Of Lewis Frank Ct al agt Karl
KrOder et al, came up This was an action for tO,
which occupied the Court for nearly two days The
Judges charge up the whole follows: This
action IS brought by the plantfs TO recover 500 Tor
erecting In the mill OF the defendants Ia Williams
burgh 1866 To prove their case, tho plaintiffs hayo
produced four witnesses, who testified that the saw was
erected ia accordance with tue contract that had been
previously entered into between the plaintiffs and the de-
fendans aud that operated when completed In very
have called equal number OF witnesses, who testified
that the utterly worthless aud that when IL
started II tore down the scaodiDg aud brick work IL
find that the paiuts witnesses have told the truth,
The plaintiffs entitled TO verdict; IT, the contrary,
nud that they have not told the truth and the de-
PENDANTS witnesses have you Will find verdict for tho
make in which has detained six hours" Verdict
for the plaintiffs for 500.