New-York tribune., 1876-11-21
CIVIL NOTES.

IN the suit Of Solomon against Moral, Judge
Van Bruut yesterday refused to release the defendant
from imprisonment. The papers stated that Solomon
soted with his creditors in November, 1870 giving over
all his property Moral trustee the notes
which he gave settlement. In this suit the defendant
declared to hold over $1,000 lOr this object. lie
fed and an orer Of arrest WIS issued and served on his
coming tO attend sons wedding. Blumenstle Ascile
appeared Tor PLAINTIFF; Richard s. Ne~cJmbe fog de-
fcndaut
In the suit Of Francis d. Moulton against
Henry ward Beccher, application has been made by
the attorneys of Mr. Beocher that the disconuauce Of
the suit by the plaintiff shall not De without allow
ance 70 them for their bic and expense in the de
tense The statutory costs only $50 So but the
allow percentage on the claimant demand
in proper eases and Mr. Beechers counsel insist that
this Is proper for such allowance. The motion
is noticed lor the first Monday OF December
In a suit OF Samuel ii. Randall against
Charles Duseubury, the superior Court General Term,
Judge spcr giving the opinion. discusses length
the powers Of tie courts enforce judgments by pro-
ccedngs Tor contempt The defendant was ordered by
Judgment TO pay - 40 73 out OF a special fund received
by MIN. and on his failing 10 do 50 proceeding for con-
tempt begun against him, but denied BY The Court
at Sp,cilIrcrm The General Term ailrms this denial
holding that the process ol execution was the proper one
,his and therefore tAat the process by contempt
was improper. least until the process by execution
WAS tried and exhausted
In the suit of Mary Ann Davis against s. c.
H. Davis which has been trial in the Special Term OF
the Common Pleas for several days, judge Van Brunt
counsel decided In Defendants favor TIE plaintiffs
ease rested her marriage to tho defendant, and that
rested on the question whether she had been legally
married to Taylor the Indian Territory or il mar
rol whether she had been properly divorced nom him,
so 49, 10 be liberty marry again. JudSeNan Brunt,
in am oral opinion reviewed at length the law OF mar
rate aud divorce affected by the law " the place or
ne arriac and decided that under 10 the ratuiih was
wc al the time OF tho alleged marriage 10 Davis, and
therefore dismissed her SUIT.
In the suit of James V. IIagaman against
Edward Burr the Superior Court, General Term, sus
Gains the decision OF the Special Term Of the court The
action was note made by the defendant, who said 10
was fraudulent in that t exacted by creditor 10
whom gave IL an inducement 20 procure that cred
itor's signature Of composition deed The plaintiff in
sisted that one Avery had bought the note for value
before maturity and assigned it to him. and thus any
such deficit as alleged by the defendant removed
At the close OF the plaintiffs testimony each side asked
take the from the jury and decide Il.
The court dld and decided for the defendant. The
General holds that under such circumstances the
decision the court the facts Is exactly equivalent
decision by jury. and only the Oi law be
reviewed Here the decision OF facts sustains the Ju
ment of law, and the decision should he affirmed.