The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-27
ESSEX MARKET POLICE COURT.
Before Judge Sherwood.

TRACING 4 HEAv- BURGLARY
On the night Of February % the premises Of
Martin Specht, No. 220 Rivtngton street, were
entered by means OF an opening made through
the door from the cellar, and some 400 yards OF
cloth, valued at $4,000. were carried Oh. Martin
Specnt reported the case at Police Headquarters,
and Detectives Lyon and King were detailed to
work It up. Yesterday morning, about eleven
along the Bowery they noticed . truck
with load Of Slo!n orive up and .
1 man named ~Snsa John Thompson Walking along.
the central once. The truck Stopped IN 'front.' Of
No. lls Bowery, between Broome and Delaney
streets. At the same time man named William
Devlin. VINO was waking on the other side OF the
sreet, stopped on the corner OF Bro0me aud
raised his hat, and then J0nn Thompson came IOr-
ward and commenced unloading the truck. De-
,ective King ran across the street to secure Dew
Thompson. Fnompson, being powerful man.
threw lyons to the around, but was brought to
and compelled Surrender bois DevIn n A sad
Thompson were finally secured and Drought before
me 81 sSe
to 81 500 IN value, were Identified By specnt as
ms o Property. and both prisoners were neld IN
William A. stevenson testified that he was en-
POO D No. 20 70
where they were apprehended.
RAID UPON MIIKMEN
Oficer Joseph A. Gardner. OF the SANITARY squad
preferred charges aduteranng milk against
three dIfr4renL dealers-Henry Dorzbacner, of No.
los First avenue: Joseph Scnenck, OF No. 1876 East
Houston street, and Joseph h. Watkin, OF No. SO
First avenue. Charles f. Chandler. M D., President
OF the Health Board, appeared Deiore the Justice
rs the principal witness against them. The Judge
held them In $500 bail eacn to answer.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
WASHINGTON, Feb. "a, 1876.
No. 2O2. The Mechanics and Grocers' Bank vs.
The Union Bank, OF Louislana-Error to the su-
preme Court Of Louisiana.-The Union Bank hav-
ing loaned the paintin bank $500 in Confed.
crate money, In 1862, which was evidenced by
checks given IN favor o. the latter, sought to re-
cover IN lawful money OF the United States. The
Provost Court, established General butler, gave
Judgment In favor OF tue Union Bank, and the
borrowing bank was compelled TO pay In Its own
notes. This action was TO recover the amount
paid and was against the plslntin. The Supreme
Court OF the State adll med the Judgment, hoidn ing
that, by authority OF the President General Butler
had power TO establish the Court, aud That It had
jurisdiction TO try the cause ana oetermine the
controversy; also, lnat II the juds m.ent or the
Provost Court were to be considered as originally
VOID II was validated by the constitution Of tine
judgment Is assigned as error, the platu TIT in
error maintaining that the Provost Court was
ment IN the case; that It's judgm emf varied the
contract between the parties, winch was that the
e
E. & A. G. Janin Tor palntin In error, p. Philips
ior DEFENDANT
No. 2OA Brown vs.. Bracket ct aL-Error to
the supreme Court OF CaliiornIa.-This action was
brought ~ Brown TO recover o tract OF land IN
Marin county, California. originally gran ed oy
OF the defendants, twenty.dv. In number, denied
Browns title. and set up their own under the
United states. The Court granted a nonsut, ma.
lug That sue paintin had failed 10 prove tnat the
land In question was part OF the land con.
Is taken, Inc POSITION being snat the sr aSt
OF 1851, Ia relation TO private land Claims,
Is drawntn Question IN the oeclsion VI the case.
Inc DEFENDANT III error moves to dismiss on the
ground that, as no custer was shown, the case did
lot proceed lar enough ~ Involve tine considera.
tion aud CONSTRUCTION oil the act. Submitted on
the bries, without argument. Z. T. Bolts Tor pain
tn III error, Jonn M. Coshlan Tor defendant.
Circuit Court Tor the Western District OF North
Carollna.-In this case the defendant recovered =
four months of MS being SO declared on Inc pet.
llon Of MS creditors and aiterward certain lands
the Juagment. the plaintin in error. as assignee,
seeks to enJoin the SAFE, claiming lnat the Iatner
suffered the Judgment to De taken III fraud Of his
creditors, ana with the intent TO pre- the
creditor. and That the son had reasonable cause
60 peiieve us father insolvent ct the time Oh the
10 tue son accrued mostly before aud during the
war, and IN 1850 the notes vi tue Indebtedness
the notes transaction In good latin, and In no
way giving fraudulent preference, under the
laws OF the state the Bankrupt act or at me com.
stances Of the case snow that by the rene wal
priority was intended and e1ected. 5. r, Philips
Tor appellant, IA. w. Gulon Tor appellee.
NO. 2l2. sioan vs.. Lewls-Error to the Circuit
Court ior North Carolina.-ln this case there was
judgment In favor oil the defendant In error, as
assignee IN bankruptcy OF one Rhyme as against
the paintln In error 10 respect oi land In North
Carolina, foi merly belonging ~ Rnyne winch ne,
as alleged, raudulently conveyed 10 the plaintiff.
me case "a Drought here upon the aleea alton tnat
RhJ ne vas frauduiently adludicated o bankrupt
o. the District court oil North Carolina, and the
Court having neld that ne validity OF The bank.
rupt proceeding coulu not De cuntvoverteo, lcat
ruling 10 assigned as error. II. W. Guou for PLAIN.
tin III error, defendant not appearing.
No. 2l4 Willard vs. Brigham ct al-Error to the
supreme Court 0I Lousiana.-rhe NAN question
Ia ts case rs whether the state courts aq iuris.
diction OF title derived from United states UanH.
rupt proceedings, and could annui 1t In co lateral
proceeding, rs II IL alleged oy plaintiff IN error
been attempted IN TINS case. Dur nj 4 line lot
,,iui ~ A.r a n