The New York herald., 1869-06-04
CcUsT OF COMMON pLEAs-spECAL TERM.
The Bremen Steamship COmpnDy-Can q
Plaintiff Discontinue Where the Defendant
Has Made n Counter CiGime

The Bremen Steamship COmpnuy-Can n
Plaintiff Discontinue Where the Defendan nt
Has Made Counter CiGims
Before Judge Brady.
TIE Pacific Maa Steamship Company ps. charles
Laii,ao and Walidm Toel.-In December, 1866 the
plaintiff and defendant were beth creditors Of the
old North American Lloyd Steamship Company, the
for about $685. ooO the other for about 100000,
which were liens on the steamers of that company.
An arrangement was finally elected by which new
company the New York and Bremen Steamship
Company, was to be created and was created and
that company mortgaged the three steamers, the
Atlantic Baltic and Western Metropolis, to the de-
PENDANTS for their claim. while the defend
ants were to- protect or hand over claims
Bremen Company having made default in the pay
ment Of the interest measures were taken In the
TACT sold at private sale and the Atlantic ana West
ern Metropolis were advertised for sale.
The plaintiffs then commenced this SUIT, complain
ing that the sale of the vessels together would be
q sacrifice; that the defendants claimed that plain
tfs as stockholders were liable for any deficiency
and that there were other causes which would make
an immediate sale Instantaneous. There were
also other claims included in the complaint. An In
Junction was granted and the sale OF the ships
btopped; but after few weeks the defendants
agreed that the OF the vessels should be separate
and the vessels were sold at great loss the Atlantic
The defendants answered the complaint setting
mp on their behalf that plaintiffs had not fulfilled
thelr agreement, ana asking an accounting. the
suit ran on on the calendar till the 25th OF May last
when II was put over the term. The next day the
plaintiff entered an order OF discontnuance, and
rendered the costs. The present motion Is made by
the defendants TO set aside the order OF discontinue
ance, on the ground that the plaintiff having obtained
an Injunction. thereby putting the defendants to
loss, ana the defendants having, as they were ad-
vised preferred counter claim in place OF cross
oil, could not now be deprived OF their right 10
maintain that counter claim, and could not In case
involving nearly 81 000 000 put parties to large
Pense in securing counsel and then run away with
the payment OF but nifty dollars.
MIR. OC0nor answering for The plaintiff, said that
when he came into the case the main object Of the
bill for the separate sale OF the vessels mad been
accomplished. and on examination he found the
plaintiffs had left 1t would be hard TO COM
pei the planiffs TO try case where the defendants
the injunction the defendants had remedy on the
Injunction bond. He contended that defendant
could not gain control OF suit by setting up coun
ter claim. But even II IN some cases he could the
counter claim in this suit was not OF such nature
as TO authorize them 10 force the paintf TO trial
In this case. The Court reserved It's decision.
The Leslie Divorce Cass-Cnn n Plaintiff Dis
continue Suite
Frank Leslie u.s. Sarah Ann Les,te.-This suit
which has been so long before the court dlscon-
tinued by the plaintiff entering an order Of discon-
tinuance and paying the defendants attorneys COM
mon costs, amounting to about $50. The defendant,
however, is not satisfied with the settlement She
has preferred counter charges in the suit against her
husband, and has, after quite struggle, obtained
an allowance Of anony at $50 per week, and OF a
counsel fee OF $500. The attempt by the plaintiff to
discontinue followed close after the decision OF
the General Term Affirming the decree for almony
and counsel fee. the defendant therefore moves 10
vacate on the ground that the plaintiff cannot dis
continue his action because he has not obeyed the
order OF the Court, ana because the defendant has
obtained the same position "a TO the plaintin that
she would by a cross bill, and that she cannot on q
mere whim Of the plaintiff, be deprived OF her rights
IN the suit against him.