The New York herald., 1876-01-14
l...eraay oelore judge Barrsl., in suprsms cOur.,

yesterday before Judge Barrett, In Supreme Court
Chambers
benjamin Jones brought suit against the Mutual Gas
Light Company, claiming s., 900 damages, through
breaking his nose and spraining his shoulder from fall
ing down stairway while attempting TO get in the
office Of the company. The tried yesterday
before Judge Speir OF the Superior Court The de
enee was that there was no negligence on the part or
the company The Court directed verdict for the
defendants
In the suit OF Lewis VS. sratton, tried before Judge
van Hoesen, OF the Court OF Common Pleas, verdict
was given yesterday for the painiinor S56s2 so Mrs
LOWS charges that defendant having become her law
yer ultimately obtained from her property in Elizabeth
ana furniture IN exchange for property in Nineland,
when nc Claimed TO own unmpared, when In realty
tney were encumbered with mortgages by himself ana
she sued Tor damages.
In October 1872, julius H. Hagen and F. w. Billings
received Rom Herman Kuppcr $l,2oO, with instruc-
tions 10 1y 100 shares OF Chicago and Northwestern
Stock suit was brought by Kuppcr for I'll OOO,
alleged value OF the shares the case being tried yes
terday before Judge Mcneil Of the superior Court The
defence claim that thoy bought for the plaintiff 200
shares ofvaTious stocks with the understanding that
ne should keep the margin up to ten per cent that he
failed TO do this that thereupon they sold out the
stock; and further that they bought the stock with
their own money and that deduction should be made
on that account Case on.
tor OF this port was brought up, before Judge ship
man, yesterday for trial. in the United States Circuit
Court. Herold has sued TO recover damages, 10 the
extent u $65o, upon an excess OF ground chiccory
Collector Arthur claims that, according 10 an act
passed in 1864 duty OF four per cent was levied upon
chccory root and duty OF 1--WE per cent upo2 ground
chccory Herold tho other hand, shows that by an
act passed in 1872 the duty upon chccory, whether
ground unground was reduced to one per cent q
pound. Inasmuch as this is test case much interest
Is excited IN regard to It.
sono time ago Mrs Mary Clark loft certain property
to be divided between her three children Robert B.
Clark brought partition suit and another Of the heirs
Charles X. Clark, requested Mr. Waite, lawyer, to
raise money for him OH a mortgage. MIR. Fletcher at
torney for Of the heirs, procured $500 on the
mortgage retained $500 for his services in searching
the titles as he alleges and as bonus as Mr. Wai.o
alleges, and Mr. Waite, on the representation OF MT
Fletcher that It all matter OF form, after the
mortgage and assignments were executed gave cor
thcaio Of affidavit Of Clark that there was no de-
fence OF usury TO the mortgage. Subsequently Mr
Fletcher commenced proceedings to foreclose tho
mortgage and Mr. Waite set up the defence OF usury
He says thore Understanding that there would
be Foreclosure and therefore he never intended the
defence OF usury any other defence but considering
Mr. Fletcher to be acting in violation OF his agreement
and at hs clients suggestion he entered the defence OF
usury. The before the General Term yester-
day on an investigation as to the proprety OF the
transaction and argued at considerable length Mr.
c. Brooks appearing Mr.. Waite and Mr. Parsons for
Mr. Fletcher. The Court reserved decision.