The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-06-04

lNLV
the Prevention or Cruelty to Animals. The plain
tins had obtained preliminary Injunction re-
straIning the defendant from interfering with the
business OF the plaintiffs, who are hog slanghter-
ers by arresting them or their employees. This was
considered test case, and on the motion TO con-
rinue the injunction. which was argued several
weeks ago--lull particulars OF which were pub
ilsned at the time In the HERALD-every effort was
made by the plaintiffs TO convince the Court that
the defendant would 40 an lrieparable
restrained by the Injunction order OF the
Court Ex-Mayor Hail, who appeared as counsel
for the hog contended that mis- clients
made use OF every known appliance and improve
ment the purpose OF Strengthening the hogs
quickly; that they were guilty Of no act OF cruelty
TO the animals: that If they were guilty OF no acts
orcruety then the Court should prevent the de-
fendant from interfering with their business; and
at all events. they were entitled to have the ques
ton OF cruelty passed upon by the Court before
they should be disturbed in the quiet conduct OF
their business. ,Messrs. Elbrldge y Gerry and Am
brnse Mcneil, who appeared as counsel Tor the So
ciety, insisted that where, as mere, there was a
conflict OF evidence as TO the acts OF cruelty and
suffering perpetra:ed ON the hogs by the plantins,
this court had no power or authority to
determine that question, but must leave
Under UNI ~ the he law; and that the delenda ut
being in the nature OF a public organization and
charged by statute with the endorsements OF cer-
tain laws framed expressly for the purpose OF the
prevention oil and punishment for cruelty to ami
mails. the Court could not by Injunction prevent
I'LL iOAl uiuniuk dIlCSls IOI NlOlallOu Oh tue
laws. 40. sl.-
Judge Larremore embodies his decision in an
elaborate opinion; After . recltlng the counter
completely the views or the Defendants counsel.
and holds that no Court OF Equity has any power
to restrain the defendant from exercising the
power conferred on 1t by law, and that II the de-
lendant abuses Its powers and does an unauthor-
lied act the remedy against 1t IS an action tor
damages. He therefore vacates the original IN
junction, with costs.
Is q Balance Due an Indorscr Valid
Set Ofs .-..se
Some weeks ago the suit of Charles E. Strong,
Receiver of the Atlantic National Bank, vs. Charles
the defence was that when the bank failed Mr..
P. Edwards and Daniel Sloane was tried
in this +, Court before Judge Larremore.
The suit was brought to recover on
three notes for $4,000 altogether, and
Sloane had balance OF se,o1s in the bank; that
Edwards made the notes without any consider
alton; that all the facts were known to the bank,
and that DEFENDANTS offered TO pay each note by
check. 1t appeared the notes were made by Ed
wards for the accommodation OF Mr.. Sloane and
were discounted by the bank. but proof was want
ing that the bank knew about the accommoda-
tton. The Court had to decide whether balance
due to the indorser of note is valid set OF in
an action BY receiver against maker and in
J. did not know OF the accommodation, and whether
ne is, therefore, entitled to recover against q
maker.
A decision was yesterday rendered by Judge
Larrcmore to this exect:-The action is brought
against both maker and lndOrSer. II the tndOrScr
Is entitled TO the equitable set of claimed by him
1t must ensue to the benefit Of the maker; for it
would operate as a fragment pro tnntO OF the de-
mand or suit. At the time OF the suspension or the
bank and on the days when the receiver Thereon was
appointed. and the time when SAID notes were ma
tured, there was due and owing to Mr.. Sloane ana
placed to his credit by the bank a balance OF
s6,0l3 10 on deposits. II this suit had been insti-
tuted by him IN the name of the bank there could
be no question rs to his right OF ofIset. Judge
LarremOre here quotes the authorities referred to
by the plaintln, and adds:-"A receiver
under the United States Banking laws has
no greater powers In this respect than
those conferred by the statutes or our own State.
He takes the trust cum Onere, charged with all
the equities that existed against MS assignor As
no legal tender of payment on the part OF the de.
fendant was established by the proof the plaintiff
is entitled to Judgment for. his claim less the
amount oil said Oifset-viz., $4,255 81
tN&. &N 49, By Judge LOew. iTI
Gardner VS.. decentralization granted on pay.
ment OF SIS, referees ices. 7. @tt
Knowles vs.. Toone.-Extra allowance OF three
per cent granted.
Harris vs.. Harrs.-Applicatton denied. See
memorandum. .-.s. -. s....t...t t Ia
stephens vs. stephens; Smith Vs. Brague.-see
memOrandums. aHs4r fN
In the matter, &c, Kelam.--Applcat ton
granted. 1tFs- @t-'.. ~. + ~ Hitg fff'
100 BY Judge Robinson. 4A
Weber VS.. Bang-Findlngs or fact nled with
Clerk OF Equity. te.t s