The New York herald., 1876-02-09

Pleas for the past two years and which has in various
forms been before the Court was finally disposed or
yesterday This was an action brought by The hus
band against the wife for divorce viuculO on the
ground Of alleged adultery and motion was made 70
Coufrm the report OF the referee, who had found In
favor Of the plantn. Judge Robinson. before whom
the motion argued by W. C. Traphagcn for plaintiff
ana Douglas A. Ievicn, Jr, for the defendant denied
the 10 confirm and rendered judgment for the
WIFE, holding that the testimony Of the sole witness,
upon which the plaintiff relied, OF such contradic-
tory and doubtful integrity that no divorce ought TO be
granted on H.
Before Judge Sutherland, in the Court Of Gen.
eral Sessions yesterday, John Beamsh, lad
OF nineteen who gave his occupation as
farmer and his residence Chrysto street,
sent 10 State Prison for year and six
months on conviction of forgery the third degree.
On the 18th OF last month he called upon Smith &
Hedges jewellers at No Maidcn lane and presented
letter purporting TO come from Mr.. +. Schneider,
jeweller, OF No. 6S Bowery and asking what Messrs
Smith Hedges would charge for handsome
pair OF one-carat diamond studs. nicely matched hr.
Smith returned note to the effect that they had such
pair OF stones and would sell them for S24O An hour
Iaier Beamish returned with note requesting Mr..
smith TO give him the studs and enclosing check on
the Pacific Bank for $240 TO pay for them Mr. Smiths
suspicion was aroused and requesting the lad to wait
while the studs we're being prepared he sent TO MT
Schneders store and learned that the notes and the
check were forgeres, whereupon he arrested Beaush
The latter stated yesterday that he had been sent with
the notes by strange man whom he met upon he
corner of Bowery and Canal street and who represented
himself to be Mr. Schneider The jury found him
guilty OF attempting to utter false check and he was
sentenced as related above.
In the suit brought by Mcssrs. Shook 4 Palmer
against Messrs Street smith, publishers OF the Nep
York Weekly, and in which temporary injunction was
recently granted restraining the latter from publishing
in their paper tho story of Rose Michel" the order
TO show cause why such injunction should not bo
made permanent returnable yesterday before
Judge Sedgwick holding Special Term in the Superior
Court Messrs. Lockwood Crosby, on be-
half of the defendants, asked an adjourn
ment OF the case ON the ground that the
papers had been served late that they had
been unable to get in readiness argue the matter
They also stated that the publication OF the story did
harm 70 the plaintiff. Judge Dttenhoefer, counsel
for the plaintiffs, insisted In reply that the publication
OF the story great injury TO his clients, nasmuch
tzaon of the play, and thus interfere with the copy
right of the plaintiffs After further argument,
the set down for peremptory hearing on the
18th inst
An important case, brought to recover the sum OF
$S25 promssory note, on for trial yesterday
in the Common Pleas Court, before Judge Van Hoesen
and jury. II appears that one David La9ky was con
stanty procuring IRON Marks Rinado accommodation
notes, that the notes matured some were pad aud
renewed that finally Rnaldo told Lasky that no
must in some manner pay tho notes, and as each note
matured. If he unable TO pay the same In ful that
he must pay portion of the Same and no would give
him II renewal note for the balance until all the
outstanding notes paid The note in suit was
made by Lasky and indorsed as before stated, by
RInaldo without any consideration and for Lasky's
accommodation and delivered by Lasky, the maker,
with Riuados indorsement TO the plaintiff Draper, In
payment of Indebtedness for merchandise already
existing from Lasky plaintiff II was claimed by
Judge CardoZo and Messrs. Jacobs Sink, who repre-
scncd the defendant, that as the note was given to
take up another note any other made of tho note
even the giving OF it TO the plaintiff, who received II
before maturity and good faith, diversion and
relieved the defendant from all responsibility. The
Court held and directed verdict for the defendant