The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT couaT-N BANKRUPTCY.

Petitions OF Review-D Delay in Bankruptcy
Suits.
Yesterday, In the matter Of William Belden, q
bankrupt, Judge Blatchford rendered decision.
After recitlng the fact that the adjudication was
made on the 1st day Of November, 1869, and
going into various details connected with
the case. the Judge goes on to say that
sented petition to the Circuit Judge. setting forth
previous proceedings, aud that he was aggreved ny
the decision Of the Court. The Circuit Judge granted
leave to file the petiu0n and made an order requir.
ing Jacobs, jay Cooke Co., Yerks, Reed, and Rail-
and Faohiri to before him on the 10Th OF
Should not be- granted. and directing that IN the
meantime and until the hearing and determination
the orders OF this Court herein should be suspended
This order STAYS a.! proceedings towards hearing
consequently stays the granting Of q dis.
charge so long as decision is not made
this Court, a review OF which is asked. But the
twentyhrs section OF the act provides that proceed
ton Of the bankrupt be stayed to await the deter.
mlnation OF the Court In Bankruptcy on the ques.
sS 81 s S % o. me Ss no
voring to obtain his discharge. II is not SHOWN by
the BANKRUPT why the petition OF review mas mot
to hearing and. II 1t has not, that the failure has
been through no fault Of his. or what
Ing think the unexplained delay since since;
November 1870 on the part Of the bankrupt in pro-
reasonable delay on his part endeavoring 70 OBJ
tain his discharge within the intent and meaning
vides that the jurisdiction by petition or review
may be exercised by the Circuit Court or by any
be great injustice to permit order OF the Circuit
Judge, which shows on its face that he contemplated
lion Of review ana i which WIN has o. be eS
lowed by the bankrupt to remain as
Sas against L. MaeSe Co. c
months, to remain any longer as an obstacle to
their proceeding to collect their claim out OF anv
property which the bankrupt has acquired since his
petition In bankruptcy was fled
SO much Of the order OF October 1871. as operates
as stay OF the proceedings Of L. Narcotic & %.
their judgment IL vacated.
The stuyvesant Bnpk In Bankruptcy.
motion was argued yesterday In the case OF the
Stuyvesant Bank which has been thrown into bank.
ruptcy on the petition OF Q creditor as already
stated in the HERALD. The motion was to dissolve
an INDUCTION restraining the receiver Of the bank
from selling the property Of that establishment.
Having heard the arguments Of counsel, Judge
Blatchford took the papers and reserved his
decision.
Voluntary Petitions In Bankruptcy.
Newman Aronson, George r. Wallace Angel
MandoIio James Handy, Joel Heilperm, John t.
Underhill.
Adjudications In Voluntary Cases.
George T. Rosa. Uuey Hare. Vincent Morgan,
James ii. Conel, Charles II. Conel, William q.
Moury, Willis Bristol, Jr.; Timothy R Parker WILL
liam s. huntington wheaton Ii. Race, Augustus
Hubbard, Andrew W. Turnbull, p r. rurnbulL
Elijah 9. Schanck, William :. Ban'a, Aaron O.
Schanck, Henry L. Peters, Christopher I. Schlerloh
John Johnston.
Discharges.
Waldo e. Haskins, Ralzie J. Fuller, Richard r.
Treat, Allyn Cox, Albert G. Lampson. Wesley
Stoney, Joseph Bernard Charles p. sykes.
'3rick' POmerOy Not n Matrimonial Brick
He is sued for Breach OF Promise OF Mar
riaae-Damnaes Lnid at $4,000.
Yesterday In the United States Circuit Court, q
declaration was filed by Sadie +. wilkinson vs.
Mark M. Pomeroy, who IS known in this city as
'Brickn Pomeroy, alleging breach OF promise OF
marriage against the defendant.
The chief points Of the allegations Of the bill arc
set out in the suboined statement
The plaintiff alleges that on the 30th OF Nav 1866
the defendant, at New Haven, Conn.,, and a. New
York, solicited her In marriage that sno is now
unmarried; and That In consideration OF the promise
or Inc plaintln that she would marry the defendant
when requested TO do so within reasonable time
the defendant promised and agreed to marry her,
alleges and In violation OF his promise, married
another woman, whose name Is not known to the
painful, who claims $25, 900 damages.
1t is further set up IN the bill that the lst Of
January, 1866 the defendant, being married man
pay court TO the plaintr in view OF marriage. and
held himself out then and there TO the piaInti as
single, unmarried man, capable OF contracting a
legal marriage with MISS wilkinson and undertook
To marry ner within q reasonable time when
quested TO do So The lady states that she did enter
tain the solicitations OF Pomeroy to marry her, not
knowing that he was not sole and Incapable OF con-
tracing lawful union with her. She alleges that
the defendant was, In fact married and had o law
ml wife alive, which fact, she says the defendant
knew. For these reasons, she states, she has been
vented from receiving the attentions OF Other men
In view OF marriage, having remained single up TO
"Brics" win be called upon to answer all this
and say whatever he mas to state in his defence.
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS COURT