The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-22

granted and cause placed on Special circuit cal
endar Il n the frst Friday OF the June term.
WOOD VI. McCrum.-rhls cause is placed upon
the SJes sial Circuit calendar for first Friday OF
June nn condition :nat the plantin waves COM
mlsslo.l II not returned before the 3Oth OF May
1875.
Guidet vs. Gilbert Elevated Railroad Company
Motion 10 place cause on Special Circuit calendar
is granted and cause set down for 2SIh inst.
Blake VS.. Lawson.-An allowance OF $50 Is
granted to the plalntin.
Grasmu el w. Jacobs.-Ihe default Is opened on
payment o. the costs before notice OF trial and
$40 costs III MOTION and cause Is set down Tor
trial ON nra Monday in June. Judgment 70 stand
New York Life Insurance Company vs. Keyes ct
al. Disbrowr. Jr. vs. Jacobs -Orders granted.
la the mat ter Of Lehmaler.-l viii grant the
order upon lNr eminent Of the papers on nile.
In the mat se OF Hays.-ln this case there must
be reference 40 ascertain Ehe facts.
Peeyers W. Erie Railway Company.-Motion
denied. with costs.
Wlddicomb FURNITURE Company vs. Beaton-
Motion granred q. and cause set down Tor trial on
Special Circuit calendar for first Friday Of June
by Judge Barrett
Du Pasquer VS.. Squlre.-0rder settled as pro-
posed BY plalLn[f except that the success u
party Osiofe 'n Bv Jusge ponona usAe ~ 10
Jorses vs.. The, Mayor, 8c:-ordered thar Mr.
Henry f. Davis be substituted as referee In place
OF Mr.. A. W. Harvey.
SUPERIOR o oURr-sPEcIAL TERM.
BY dge Van Worst.
Alexander VS.. lsrnnett-Attachment against
witness allowed.
port OF referee continued.
Cogswe vs.. Man glm.-Referee's report con-
irmed, and paymentitf moneys ordered.
Buskenham vs.. Solo aon-Motion granted. (See
orderl
BY Judge Sedgwick.
Under VS.. Solomon tSee memorandumJ
COMMON PLEA SPECIAL TERM
BY judge Daly.
,seloy vs.. seby.-NoShce should b. given TO
Kanter VS.. Fernandez Motion denied and stay
vacated and set ASIDE.
MARINE coJRsc-PAGT 2.
By Judg shea.
Maxwell vs.. Regeman.-The motion for new
trial is denied. person IS not allowed by law to
act in any sort OF agency and trust for two or
more parties VINO have in inc transaction adverse
previous knowledge and asselit or the subsequent
appreciation OF all parties. The decision OF the
supreme Court IN Slege VS.. Gould, Lansing,s
Rep, III, suggests no eXceptdo contrary TO this
doctrine Of morality and OF law. JudgmenG may be
therefor perfected in favor W The defendant IN
pursuance OF the verdict, with costs ana $25 al
Reeder VS.. La Bau.-Moton on my minutes for
new trial IS denied. The thing OBJECTED 10 by the
defendant arises rom the fact that question was
put TO one OF the plaintiffs Witnesses IN open
court, as he WAS leaving the witness stand. oy
one OF the jurors, III The presence AND hearing OF
the oEher jurors. ana was1n part answered. All
cnanced that the attention Of the judge and ofcoun
sci was at that moment Withdrawn lrGm that Wit
ness, as they supposed tine examlna ton entirely
ended, the witness having just left the witness
stand, aud Jney heard neither the question nor
It's Imperfect answer. Ine attention OF DOtH cOun
sci AM Court was at once called to the circum-
stance, ana tue juror, on being requesned by the
Court, repeated the question which fse had al
ready put TO that witness, and the QUESTION was
ruled out as irrelevant. Herein was DO proper
interference with nor misconduct on l,ne part OF
Inc jury and no abuse Wnetner verd let should
be set aside on such a ground depends upon tue
circumstances and the real justice OF the case.
Ii there IL a probability oil abuse the Court then
notices the interference or misconduct, but In
the present instance there Is no abuse. Smith
vs. thompson, Governs Rep. 22l; Reynolds VS..
Fash VS. Byrnes, IA Aubott's Prac. Rep, 12) Judg-
ment may be entered upon the verdict In FAVOR or
plalntlr, with costs.
Devoe and others vs.. LIE Cour-Motion on my
minutes denied and judgment may be entered on
verdict IN favor OF plantIf1s with costs. The bor
rowing OF money oy married woman for the
purpose, ana which she applies TO the benefit or
her separate properly, creates such laoillty
that an action AT law under our statutes can be
maintained against ner. An acton would not be
against her husband for money borrowed for such
purpose. duffy VS.. Levi Marine Court, General
Term, May ~, 1874, MSSl the principle OF the
decisions of the Court OF Common Pleas in Lewis
vs.. Woods and Treadwel vs.. Hoffman are quite
pertinent TO the facts Of this case