The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-07-29
He CoUR rs.
Tho American Anglo-Erie Wharf.-The Troubles Of
Divorced Husband-The Anti Gamblers
Case-Another Divorce Suit-Deciyions
SUPREME ssgaI-sAmuEAs. s1'

-
| Tho English Steckhoiiers Gals q vlctery-
An Injunctisn Dissolved Opinion by Judge
Brady.
NICE cs. The Erie Rdthoav Company ana Heath d
Rdphde-This was suit to restrain the transfer Of
certain shares OF the books OF the Erie Rail-
| way Company to the names OF Heath Raphael,
who are the agents OF the English stockholders.
| preliminary Injunction was granted on the ground
that this transfer was to be made with view Of OBJ
tanning the control OF the affairs or the Erie Railway
and that the English stockholders were an illegal
| Subsequently the defendants moved to dissolve
the injunction, claiming that they had no Intention
OF attempting to control she company. but were
voice IN its infringement. Yesterday Judge BRADY
granted the notion and states his reasons for so
The motion to dissolve the Injunction granted on
this case was made upon the complaint and answer,
It was conceded upon the argument that the injunc
uon was TOO broad and IL was, therefore, vacated
in such respects as the concession covered. The
equities OF the complaint fully denied by the
answer an the charges OF unlawful combination
and conspiracy refuted II was not.questoned upon
the argument that the answer met the allegations
OF the complaint and denied them fully; but 1t was
contended by the PLAINTIFFS counsel That the verinca
ton TO the answer not having been made by the de-
PENDANTS but by their attorney and agent IN TACT
was not sufficient to accomplish the same result as
| II 1t had been made by the defendants or one OF
them. The objection cannot be sustained. The code
provides that the verncatiOn may be made by the
agent or attorney, II all the material allegations OF
the pleading be within his personal knowedge and
davi made by the agent that he possesses the
sary qualifications within the statute. have carefully
examined this case and entertain no doubt that the
injunction should be dissolved
ordered accordingly. ~ .t
Once Msrried and Twice Imprisoned-The
Troubles Of a Divorced Husband.
amanda Watkins John Wdtkins-About
three years ago the plaintiff obtained judgment of
divorce and alimony IN a suit Tor divorce on the
ground Of adultery against the defendant. IN July
1869 Watkins was arrested for n0npayment OF 81 TAO
alimOny DUE He gave 81, 100 to his counsel TO pay
this amount, and out or it $500 was given to the
plaintiff. Where the remaining 5000 went to Is yet
to be discovered. He then released, but In
February 1870 was rearrested under precept OF the
court TO pay 81, 44o additional ahmOny. A motion
was made for his release on the ground that he was
unable TO pay the money, and also because OF his III
rs %Scs WAS %
was granted, and the prisoner was discharged yes
terday, on giving bail for the limit OF the allmony.
and stpulatlng that within thirty days he would
apply for The benefit Of the fourteen day act. Mr..
Richard Q. Beamish was appointed assignee to his
estate.
The Anti-Gamblers Remanded to Prison.
In re Gal,cay ana West.-The decision on the ap-
plicati0n Of Galway and West, Of the Anti-Gambing
Society, for their discharge, which was made on
Tuesday, was given yesterday by Judge Brady He
decided to deny their application. Their counsel
tended that the twenty-five dollars received from Mr.
Hyde the complainant, was for services to be rem.
dered, and that there were false pretences. Judge
tence that one of them was in the habit Of vsitn0
frequently the different gambling houses In the city,
and that IL not received for acts to be performed
The prisoners were therefore brought back to prison.
The ROnx Divorce Suit-Abandonment and
Adultery.
Before Judge Cardozo.
Eliza A. Ro,tL Us. Frederick E. Rour.-This Is o
suit for divorce and in answer to the complaint In
the case the following statement is made:-On the
25th OF September, 1885, Eliza j. Roux, the defend
ant. was married to Frederick Z. Roux. A child
was born to them In July, 1866, and they
1857. On that day the defendant left his
home, and since nen has not contributed In any way
to the support Of his family His wife has lived with
her father since that time. In the months OF June
and July, 1857, II is claimed the defendant violated
his marital vow, at No. Crosby street. and again on
she first knew Of these facts on the 4h OF May 1870
and that she has not cOhabited with him since then
The answer denies all the allegations IN the COM
plant, except that OF the marriage and that the
child was born to him. The only step taken yester-
day was the swearing In OF struck jury. The hear
Ing was postponed, on motion OF counsel. I'LL the
9Th OF August
Decisions.
BY Judge Brady.
Sc1leSSinger rs. Antretn.-Defaut opened. judy
ment to remain as security.
Maria Sahalka Us. Vtilcent Sahalkd.-JudRment
OF divorce granted.
BY Judge Barnard.
Rat7ley ct al. Us. Ldtn0 Ell dL-Amendments set
tied.
LQntOnn Us. L1,ligdn.-Ju6gment granted.
BY Judge Card0ZO.
Rubber TIP Pencil Company u.s. S. ID. HOueD-
Motion to Dissolve must be denied, &c. Costs to
abide event.
COURT CAlEkOAR--THE DAY.