New-York tribune., 1869-06-08
TIE OLYMPIC THEATER.

IHEAIER
BOHes Receiver and Duff, ReceiUer-Supreme
Court General Tern-CeTke p J.; Barnard and Car,
do5o JAi5 was motion ey & the & defendant 70 open pen
calendar on an appeal from the Judgment Of the Special
Ingr ham, and Sutherland According TO the afdavts
the part OF the plaintiff the attorney for the defend
present shortly before the case was called and
when was nearly reached lett the room Inc attorney
for tie defendant followed him, and warned him his
coming on when he answered he desired TO get his
couneI, hr' John Gidlall. Inc couIseI LOT pIalnIH
returned TO the courtroom, and when the
induced the take up another before his,
thus throwing 1t over TO the next day. He notified de-
fendants attorney OF the facts, but the next day
iriif nnsnI M Trc,Tsa an orSSr fro me CoSr A.
Tectng him submit his papers and permitting the de-
new deeiined to submit his points. and moved to
open f6e case as for a default before Judge
Cardozo on the ground that Mayor Han was
defendants counsel, and that he called at that
Albany attend before OF the INVESTIGATING
committees cross motion was maze before Ir' gusuce
Clerke BOthJudges decnned 10 lhteIeIe; M. Jusuce
Cardozo sending the case 70 the General Term. The
Of the defendant, and Mr.. Thayef for the plaintiff
Mr.. Hall argued that the afhdav;s showed that the
for the defendant was called away by the highest
possible necessity, and as an oral argument was rght
OF the defendant this proper excuse The course
era Term and borrowed from the Court Of Appeals
tce. Even IT, pretended the counsel Of the de-
fendan were guilty OF deep plOtngs the guiltless de-
fendan should not mulcted He thought the afdavits
sufficiently excused the defendant II was for the eonye
orally since involved novel and interesting consdera
Mr Thayer FOR defendant argued prelimlnarily that
the order OF the General Terp was not default which
would nave taeh te case from the curt lle case "s
still in the General Term The motion was premature; II
could not made till after the decision OF the General
Perm IL conld only be made before the Judges who
made the order and knew the facts which they made
it. General Term could not review order made
by another This order the law Of this case and
coud only be corrected by the Court Of Appeals That
General fern had taken the for decision. 1t
gross rreguay for this General Term TO take it away
from the other Term, and might result in opposing orders
ON the merits Mr.. Thayer argued that the aidavits
showed the default or absence OF the defendant to have
been in bad faith They doubt they had no ground
for IT, thought they could get different decision from
Judge Barnard asked If anything to that effect ap
Mr. Thayer said no; but it was fair deduction from
The facts in them.
such theory should receive the rebuke Of the Court
10 would be the inauguration OF system Of choosing by
the method Of permitting defaults one Judge for the
trial Of case, and avoiding another by party who de
fired 70 do So II the GeheEaI Term mght 90 H. Ihe
Special Term might do It, and great source OF scandal
Mr. Han answered that if there were any sharp prac-
tce in this il the other side IL was plaintiff
where the appellant made default to take an armance
by default This was an innovation III the practice Dor
rOwed from the Court OF Appeals He could wish that TO
be the practice Of the General Terms but IL never had
been. He thought the afhdavits submitted by them
and that the regularly argued, If the General
Term should decide against the plaintiff. the plaintiff
move for reargumeut and demand oral hearing The
Court reserved its decision.
WEST SIDE ELEVATED RAILWAY LITIGATION.
In this matter, previously reported IN the
columns Of TIE TRIBUNE, and IA which John A. CurTieT
seeks TO have the West Side Elevated Railway Company
eujoned from constructing their railway in front Of his
premises IN Greenwich-st, the Company have filed their
answer with the Clerk Of the United States Circuit
Son ~ Which they aver that they are not required by
construction Of their railway deny that the Common
Council has declared II nuisance deny that the com.
paaht Owls The premises IN mont Of his building
the middle Of the street and aver that said street N
owned by me City Of HewYork is held in trust by il
Tor the use OF the people OF the State Of NewYOrk
deny thdt the construction Of the railway will
do any injury To the complainant that he cannot have
adequate compensation for at law or that they have
threatened 70 tdke MS property in connection with the
construction Of their railway deny that the constrnc
tOn OF the railway Will emDarass access To or darken
non OF air therein, that the motion Of the cars viii
communicate any oscillation 10 the building of COMPLAIN
ant at the construction OF inc railway VIII deteOrate
in any way the value OF palnhs premises; deny that
the rights claimed by the Company in violation of
any article or articles Of the Constitution Of the United
states or OF the state Of NewYOrk deny that the cree
ton ~ the rail way ls IN any SENSE nuisance aver that
they are not aware that many on the proposed route
object 10 the construction OF the railway but claim that
vicinity regard the railway as great public benefit
The answer concludes with prayer llat cOnpalnanps
bill DO dismissed
INJUNCTION RESTRAINING PROCESS TO Dis
POSSESS.
johannes Reiehter agt. Christopher r. bhter-
tOh-supreme Court, Chambers-CardOzo, J.-IhIs Ns
equitable compel the defendant TO execute
and deliver TO the plaintiff lease for five years fGm
Nay last OF portion Of premises No TO- Eldrdgest ana
20 dspossess the plaintiff pendenle hk. preliminary
injunction was granted by Judge Cardozo the st OF
fios The plaintiff in possession under a five years
lease given by Werner, which expired MAY l. 1869
The property was sold several times during
the I'VE years but owned lat dAy Of February
last By ons Peters The contains covenant Of re-
ne wal 70 the enect that the landlord will one month
prior the expiration OF the term, deliver
90 the tenant HeW I-Se ioF Tears with same cOBdi