The New York herald., 1875-07-13
THE COURTS.
InsclVent Aseignments-Im-
pcrtant Decision.
Liability of Won en- in
Civil Suits.
TAKING TWEED'S COSTS.

In the Taylor viii litigation, on motion OF couE-
sci for Mrs. Rowland, Surrogate HuIchings re-
Gently granted order requiring Mr. T. II. Tracy
the executor OF the WIN Of Mr.. James 3. Taylor to
show cause why he should not be removed from
MS position for alleged incompetency. Yesterday
he filed an answer denying the charge ofincompe-
tency, and, on application OF Mr.. CLINTON, an
adjournment was taken to give time for re-
Ioinder to the answer to be fled.
Judge Blatc1ford Ii in town from Newport and
viii attend to notions &C.. for lew days, begin
ming az noon to-day.
Gottleib Wilhelm Ludwig Zennegg the alleged
fugitive forger rom saxony, was committed yes
terday BY Commissioner White for an examina-
tion on Monday next The charge against Zen
negg is that, in Oauchan, Saxouy, he forged the
names OF F. G. Vogel ana Otto Fischer to bills Of
acceptance amounting TO 1892 thalers.
James LamnerI was tried and convicted In Cen
era Sessions yesterday OF petiI larceny from tie
person, he having the 2sth Of June stolen gold
locket and chain from julius Urwch, In Bayard
street. Judge Sutherland sentenced him TO the
State Prison for two years and six months.
The closing argument In the case Of Mcguire vs.
sotildo has been made by ex-JHdge Curtis on the
part OF the respondent, and Judge otterbourg has
discharged the respondent. The charge against
the respondent lipel he having alleged that
the complainant had been guilty OF picking pock-
Curtis reviewed the law or libel in TINS country
and in England claimed that the charge was fully
proven and closed with earnest appeal lor the
liberty OF the press
LAW OF INSOLVENT ASSIGNMENTS.
IRE Produce Bank OF the City OF New YORK VS..
Austin Baldwin, assignee &C., impleaded with
otners.-ThIs action was brought February 6, 1875,
by the plaintiff, judgment auditor, by the three
defendants, Joseph Morton, Leon Wiel and Al
phonso Wiel, VITO were heretofore doing business
10 the city Of new YORK, as wholesale china and
glassware merchants under the nrm name OF
Wiel Brothers Company, against said defend
ants and Austin Bald win, for the benefit OF their
CREDITORS, to set aside the assignment as void.
The instrument Of assignment was made ana re-
corded In the once OF the Clerk OF the City and
County OF New York, February T. 1874 pursuant
60 chapter 34s, Laws OF 1850. The schedule or In
ventory, as well as the BONDS given by the as
signee, were 1led in the once OF the Clerk
OF the Court OF Common Pleas, February
10, 1874 although said act required them
TO be died in the same once where the instruments
OF assignation was recorded. The schedule
showed the liabilities OF said firm 10 be SlO5 600
and over, and 1t appears from a statement made
by the assignee that the assets have all been re-
dueed to money, and amount TO less tnan S., 900,
making q dividend OF bus two ana half per cent.
fact that over one-haf OF the creditors IN value,
as appears from the schedule, were residents OF
France, where aiao one OF the deb.ors Is said to
reside, thus not admitting OF any investigation as
rely solely on the affldaTit5 OF the debtors and
the sequel shows af1davit was ever made,
assignments was made, IN the language OF the
statute, with the intent 70 hlnder, de-
from the inability OF investigating and
knowing the correctness OF the claims
the debtors the plaintIn began tnls action; and
the assignment has been overdraWn on the
grounds stated In the following opinion by Judge
Freedman 81 the superior Court An whicn, also,
the remaining iacts are gwen -
held that after the delivery OF an assignment
for the benefit OF creditors pursuant 10 chapter
s4s or the Laws OF 1850 and before compliance
signee Is Invested only with an inchoste title
winch "a good against creditors, provided that it
Is thereafter perfected by compliance with these
sections. but tnat In case OF failure so TO comply
the Assignment must be adjudged void.
TO cause his bond 70 be died as required BY the
third section In the office oil The Clerk OF the court
where the assignment nad been re-
Filing II IN the Office Of the Court
Of Common Peas is not sufficient | am
the schedule or the inventory OF the oebtors,
which was fled, is wholly insufficient. Chapter
chapter 34S OF the Laws ol 1900, does not nelD the
assignee because he mas not awaited himself OF It's
10 IN ADDITION TO the second section OF the act Of
1860 as construed By the COurt OF Appeals, and
consequently must be read IN connection with IT.
The title OF the assignee In this case must, there
FORE stand fan wluh the better compliance
with the requirements q that section. one OF
shall be made oy every debtor, annexed to ana
delivered with the inventory or schedule. Such
affidavit can only DC taken before an officer
tlms and place at which it Is taken.
IRE an1davit 10 question Is dated February 8,
1874 ts venue is the city ana county OF New YORK.
:ae ellcer who TOOK It subscribed himself
u Is admitted taat on the day named the said
Thneg was not notary public appointed Ia ana
nad not filed IN the once OF the Clerk for the city
anc county OF New YORK certified copy or his
sDpoEtmsns ior the county Of Kings, win bis
Laws OF 1878. THIS statute MAKES such ding con-
oition precedent 70 the exercise OF any junction
any county otner tnsn the one for which the
notary Is appointed and repealed by Implication
% much OF chapter 7oS Laws Of 1872 as Is in con-
1ct with It. The defects so FAR pointed out being
sufficient within the decision OF the Court OF Az
peals in Juliand vs.. kathDone to render the
Is unnecessary TO consider the effect OF the hhng
OF the inventory In the once OF the Clerk OF the
Clerk Of the city and county Of New York. as fTe re-
CURED py the sixth section OF the act OF 1890 The
paintln Is entitled to the Judgment prayed for
ARREST OF WOMEN IN CIVIL SUITS
In the case OF Duncan, Sherman & Co. vs. Ella
shaw, otherwise known as Mrs. Katen the argu-
ment on the adjourned motion to discharge the
defendant from arresS on o civil process was
resumed yesterday before Judge Barrett in su.
premo Court Chambers, ex-Districs Attorney
Briggs, OF Westchester county, and Peter Mitcnsll
associate counsel, appearing for the defencant,
and Mr. Fay appeared on behalf OF Duncan, sher-
man Il co. Mr.. Mitchell, in his argument, insisted
first, shat the arrest Of Mrs. Katen was penal In
its operation, and that section 179 Of the code
must be strictly construed in favor OF the defend
ant In support OF bis views he cited the opinion
OF Judge Andrews In the case OF Hathaway vs..
johnson (55 n T., p. sD. His second point
was shat II the oeienaant received any gold
certificates, the plaintiffs property, there
was no proof adduced 70 show tnat sne
had ever exchanged them for bank notes or any
other kind OF property, and II there was only 4
concealment II was only conversion ana not a
wiliul destruction OF property a. contemplated Dy
the CODE and, therefore, shat the defendant was
not aupect to arrss He contended furtner that the