The New York herald., 1870-01-05
SUPREME COuAT--GEHeRAL Term.
Important to Bankers.

Before Judges ingraham, Barnard and Cardozo.
the 1Etnd National Bank or Hartford ps The
Fourth National Brafc or the City Of Ne,c York.
In this case the Florence Mills, Connecticut cor
porati0n, Kept an acc0unt with the defendants,
where their notes were frequently payable. ayerag-
ing In number about five per month from January
10 April, 1868, and three from 1st 20 10th OF April
or these for $4,000 became payable tile "a OF
tnat month and for So 900 the Attn Of April the
following day being Sunday. II appeared that the
corporation eierred 10 mad balance to their credit
with the defendants OF $6a4 SO IN tho "a OF Aprll,
when the first note became due which note de-
PENDANTS. "a alleged. declined to pay, but on the
succeeding day received remittance from the
Florence Mills which placed them IN funds exceed
ing $4,000. The drafy due on tue "a 1elng repre-
sented was paid BY the defendants, but the draft
coming due on the 4th was not paid. The plantna
claimed that the remittance received by the
defendants on the 80 OF April was the
proceeds Of a new note OF the florence Mills
corporation discounted by the pIalntifIs, and
which discount they had made Tor account
OF the Florence mills upon their promise mat the
proceeds would be appropriated by them to the pay
menl OF the note due 4th April ana Ihat the
Florence mills RENTED the said proceeds IN time
defendants, wihsuitabe directions, but that defend
ants enormously appropriated SAID proceeds TO the
note due I'll Aprl that defendants IN receiving the
proceeds OF the draft received II charged with ihe
letter OF acknOwledgmcnt they assumed the obga-
nOn 80 to appropriate 1t, ana that not having done
so they are anie 10 the plaintiffs for the amount OF
the note, $4,000. The cause was tried before
referee, VINO rendered judgment In favor OF the
plaintiffs from which decision appeal was taken
AlLer the arguments OF counsel yesterday the Court
LOOK the papers and reserved decision.
Disputed Will Case.
Md1Y V0n Byuft rs. Annie O. Kerr et di.-1his
was an appeal from the Surrogate's decision rerus
ing probate to brief will OF the plaintiffs deceased
husband. 1t appeared that she was his second WIFE,
and there were, In ALL ten children living, besides a
son Of deceased child. The Will IN one single
clause gave his whole property valued at about
$4,000, to his wife, and appointed her eXecutriy.
The VIII was executed Ia Phi adephi where he then
was IN very dangerous sickness, and was witnessed
by his two attending doctors, Meigs and wilson.
The dispute arose as to whether the formaiues of
witnessing % VIII were attended TO- Dr. Wilson
asked the sick man whether the signature to 1t was
his, but It was not proved whether he the word
'swlln DR.. Megs does not remember whether the
word 'will' was used Mrs. Van BrunG ana another
person present are sure OF the word direct exam
tnaL0n, but not quite so sure on cross examination.
The Surrogate rejected the Will. and the widow ap.
peais. 1t was argued on her behalf that her viii
nesses were IN no way dscredited, ana that Just
Interpretation OF their testimony showed that a
ccssary points OF execution had been complied with
On the other hand IL was contended mat her own
testimony was taken against the policy OF the law,
and without It the necessary facts were not made
OUT and with II were so doubtful rs 10 justify tue
Surrogate's decision.
The tours airirmed the decision OF the surrogate.