The New York herald., 1875-10-22

the opportunity to call the attention OF counsel to the
provisions of rule u OF the Court This rule provides
hat counsel should hand to the Court at the opening OF
the trial OF cause copy OF the pleadings marked
~ 70 indicate which Of the allegations Of the complaint
are admitted by the and which denied
Ihs rule the Chief Justice sady too generally dsre-
garaed by counsel aud hereafter he would refuse TO Try
cause gntil such marked copy Of the pleadings Is
An action was tried before Judge McAdam and jury
10 the Marine Court yesterday in which stephen Inom
was plaintiff and Lucas Thompson defendant, 10 re-
cover the sum Of S2 for board and lodging furnished
10 Mrs Thompson All the issues formerly gone INTO
upon aihdavs upon question OF amony before Judge
Donohue, in the Supreme Court in the Lucas Ihomp-
son divorce suit orally gone into before the jury
in this Mr.. and Mrs. Thompson each testified
against the other and the jury after hearing the story
from Mrs Thompson OF the wrongs which she sunered
at the hands Of her husband gave fu verdict Tor the
paintin Messrs Gardiner Goodhart appeared Tor
plaintiff and Messrs Duer 4 Bagden for defendant
The will of tho late Benjamin +. Wheewright
banker oENos. and Cedar street was admitted yes
tcrday TO probate in the Surrogate's Court Among
the bequests made the following: Eye and Ear IN
Urinary, $1,000; Northern Dspensary Of New York.
81, 900; Deaf and Dumb Asylum, 81 900; Institution
for the Blind 81, 000 Samaritan Home, $1,000 The
rest OF the estate which s valued at $5OOOOO Is lett
the family OF the deceased The will is dated June
25 1873 and appoints executor and executives his
son-inaw, John III Rhoades, and daughters, Caroline
M. Child and Elizabeth G. Wheclwright
The suit Of Marshall L. Briggs and Others VS. Robert
M. James others tried yesterday before Judge
Larremorc OF the Court of Common Pleas. In April,
1873 the plaintiffs hired the Tobacco Inspection Ware
house for stock at $4,000 year, with the provision
that If they gave up certain parts they should DO
evicted In February 1874, part OF tho premises
tumbled dovn; plaintiffs say on account of improper
construction of the building defendants say by over
loading the floors Plaintiffs say that they Immediately
after left the building as untenantabe, leaving few
under kind Of consent and in May 1874, defend
ants commenced dspossession proceedings, on which
they got Judgment plaintiffs supposing they had no
further interest in the matter The present suit TO
enjoin defendants who have brought action on tho
Judgment ia dspossession proceedings The trial VIII
De resumed this morning
The suit brought by Cumberland G. White against
Agernon Baxter was before Judge Mcneil in the su-
preme Court yesterday, Thomas G. Sherman, late
counsel for Beecher, being associated with William A.
Beach, Tiltons counsel, for plaintiff, and John H. Hill,
late Beecher counsel for the defendant The case for
Mr.. White is that in 1867 he member Of the open
board OF brokers, making $4,000 year, that as agent
for Baxter he sold short 900 shares of Hudson River
Railroad stock at l2S IN February, 1867 The stock
steadily rising, the vender called for the margins and
$50 900 put in company their joint order.
further call in September for SO 600 margins was
refused by Baxter, and the stock sold at loss OF
$4,000 White, by Baxter's advice, refused to be
bound by the sale, and the latter promised to make
good to him any loss which might occur to him IN his
business. Plaintiff suspended in his business Tor
nearly two years and he now claims $4,000 damages
Defendant denies having made any such agreement,
and claims that the plaintiff owes him 81, S33 so for
money advanced to him. The trial will be resumed
this morning
Mr.. William NJ Evarts resumed his argument, on the
motion to quash the indictments against the firm OF II.
b. Clatn Co.. IN the United States Circuit Court yes
teriay morning. He cited number of authorities in
support of his position thata mistake fatal to the
dicment had been made when full particulars as TO the
alleged smuggled silks we're not given information that
the accused had right to expect case
could not legally be put on trial without
this especially whore the alleged smuggled goods
found in the possession of the defendants They
should know the name Of the ship, the consgnor and
consgnee and all Information in regard to the primary
offender He claimed that as secondary offenders the
firm had not been put IN possession OF that nforfna
tion to which they were entitled as TO the primary
causes Of the crime. Contrary to expectation Mr..
Evarts at this point concluded his opening argument
The Assistant United States District Attorney will re-
ply to-day, and should he occupy the whole session Mr.
Evarts' concluding argument will be made ON Monday