The New York herald., 1876-10-11
THE BLACK FRIDAY SUITS.

little of tho inside historyir tho statements OF
counsel arc to be considered In any way historical
was gvon yesterday in regard to the prosecution Of
the called Black Friday suits against Jay Gould,
q motion before Judge Barrett, In Supreme Court.
Chambers, for extra allowance In suit brought by
Thomas Robbins. Jr, against Jay Gould, growing out
OF gold purchases made for Gould on the memorable
Black Friday Tho suit for something
$lo0 900, which, with interest, s~clled up to about
$4,000 Mr.. Thomas q. Shcarman, the counsel OF
Mr.. Gould. made the motion, which was opposed by
own affidavit, setting forth that this suit was
the day calendar of the Supreme Court for
trial aud was about ready to be called when no
served with notice of discon ntinuanco He then
on TO that the suit difficult and extraordinary
IN iM character and ncccssitased the employ ment Of
four counsel gave great deal OF time to the pre-
liminary preparations OF the case. He added That
this Of about 1b0 similar suits, aud cited
as singular fact that, Notwithstanding there was such
multiplicity of plaintiffs, the Same attorneys ap-
peared In each He charged that II evidently
a conspiracy between the plaintiffs, although he exone
rated The counsel IRON any completely the alleged
conspiracy. He stated, further, that the almost
uniform result was dsoontinuanco OF the suits when
plaintiffs proved TO bo men OF meaIs and their vigor-
Gus prosecution when the contrary was the fact.
After ailuding 10 tho heavy on,Ays In tho suits no
citcd various authorizes showing whero extra allow
ances had granted In similar cases. Mr. Peck
ham, in reply, contended that his client party
any rocovo or breach OF ono
tract that thore justinable basis for tho
present application. Judge Barrett reserved his de-
clsion, taking the papers
WHAT CONSTITUTES MARRIAGE.
Heinrich Ho,ten died intestats, leaving estate
valued at 500, ,0oo He had been widower for sew
eral years and left several children. During the last
years Of his fo no took into his employ domestic
Mariarna Mangold, by whom he had ono child. She
claims that they entered into marriage contract aud
upon this claim brought suit for her dowor interest in
the estate. The tried before Judge Van
Brunt and resulted In dismissal OF tho complaint
An appeal was taken from this judgment to tho SUI
preme Court, General Term where tho case
gucd yesterday Mr. Charles W Weho appearing tor tho
appellant and Mr. John Hill for the rospon-
dents-the latter comprising tho children OF
Heinrich Hotten. Tho laws OF marriage
wcro discussed at length. Mr.. Wehlc insisted
that tho evidence was sufficient 10 establish a valid
contract OF marriage, such contract being shown In
the uncontradicted evidence Of the cohabitation be-
tween the parties the result OF that cohabaton tho
birth Of child the premises occupied by them,
tine record OF tho same dictated by tho husband and
proof that tho parties knowledgcd and admitted
that contract OF marriage had been entered into bc
tween thcm the execution OF sucn contract being by
cohabitation. The strong points raised In opposition
were that the plaintiff received wages as domestic
up to the death Of Hoten; that no alluded TO her as
shortly before hts death, and tho absence OF
any general rumor Of their marriage The Court re-
served its decision