The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-08-10

proceed on the third Monday OF September ~ halpast
ten A. N.
MARINE CoURr-cHAMBERs.
By Judge Sinnott
Becker vs. PsrkeL-rhe surelies discharged.
Rogers VS.. Long-Motion granted
STRIPPED VS.. hilc--Receiver appointed
Frcese VS. Muller Order granted
Fimons vs. Dismound entered
Rath VS.. Schwartz.-Mot,on granted.
SHINE vs. Fox-Piaintif has leave to serve reply
nupc pro tune
BY Judge Goepp.
Becker va Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Case settled Papers with the Clerk.
GENERAL SEsSIONS-PART !.
Before Judge Sutherland.
TRUE TO THE LAST.
Sneak thieves paid visit to the apartments Of
Henry Chaplin, No. "a Park place. and carried or
blue trock coat valued $40. The loss communi-
Gated to the Twenty precinct station house and
Frank Kelly and Charles Watson wero arrested. The
two men were identified by bootDlack named Abra-
ham Krowcnberg US tho parties WHOM he had seen
enter the window OF Chapin's office. The prisoners
wcro arraigned Tor trial yesterday by Assistant DIS
trict Attorney Herring when Kelly earnestly insisted
that Watson Innocent OF the crime charged. So
emphatic was ne IN ms protestations that Judge Sutn
crland caused inquiries be uted when resulted
in The corroboration OF Kclly's statement Watson
accordingly discharged and Kelly was sentenced
70 one years. imprisonment.
PLEAS AND SENTENCES.
On July tho store at No IS Hudson street
broken open and paged Of clothing and jewery valued
al $780, Albert Burke and John Wegand, alias Meyers,
arrested tho charge, and Burke, pleading
guilty, sentenced to one years imprisonment
There being no evidence duplicating weigand he
discharged.
Caroline D. Wilson, OF No 80 Beach street, had her
pocket picked Of SIS at the OF Broadway and
Canal the 10th OF July last James Murphy,
OF No. ASS West xeenth street, was arrested ant
being arragned yesterday pleaded guilty and was sent
10 state Prison lor ono year ana SIX m0ntus.
Victor Scnolenbsrg a groom entered tho stable Of
Richard NJ. Hoe No. 50i Grand street. aud stole har-
and other properly valued at $47. Tho property
subsequently found in his possession. Ho pleaded
guilty and WAS sent TO the State Prison Tor two years
and months.
William Lyons OF No. 42o East Sixteenth street, and
Thomas BracKen, Of No: 42S East Twelfth street,
jewcry the property OF Mrs. Mary Bath, OF No. 255
West Twenty ninth street, and were sentenced esch to
one years imprisonment
DIsoRDERLY HOUSES.
Bench warrants issued from the Court Of Gen.
era Sessions for tho Of Morris Lppman, alias
Littman Of No. 249 West Fifty nrst street, Amelia
Smith, OF No Al West Twenty street. and Hattie
Elliott of No. 3s West Twenty ninth street, on tho
charge OF keeping disorderly houses Tho warrants
placed in the hands of Captain Williams, who took
the accused parties to tho District Attorneys office
yesterday. Norman Andrews, OF No. 444 West twenty
sixth street. surety Tor Amelia Smith and Hattie
345 West Twcnty-cghth street. was the bundsman for
Lppman in the sum of $4,000, all the prisoners named
being held for trial
COURT CALENDARS--TH DAY.
SUPREME CouRr-CuAMBEKs-Held by Judge Van
BrunL-Nos. 49, 49, 81 53 49, lib, 12S, It's, 1876, 26S,
267, 277, 279, 295, 304, 305, 800
COURT or GENERAL SEssoNs--Part Held by Judge
Suiherl nd-The People VS., Charles Taylor, robbery
same Vs. Patrick Kelly, leonious assault aud battery
terry; Same VS.. Adam Aumiiler, rape; same VS.. Rich
ard Callahan, burglary Same VS.. Joseph Mccain, bur
glary; same va Daniel Brown, burglary Same VS.
Charles Brown, grand larceny; Same Richard Muir
ray aud Annie Murray, grand larceny; same James
Ahearn, grand larceny; Same VS.. Andrew Draper,
grand larceny; Same Martin Burke, grand larceny
Same Patrick Walsh, larceny from the person;
dors Stork, assault ana battery; Same VS. William
Kenny grand larceny; Same vs Samuel Bennett, lar.
ceny from the person. same vs. Edward j. Dodge, for
gerry.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
WASHINGTON, August 8, 1871
No. 1877. John B. Grim, appellant John H.
Handlcy ct al-Appeal from the Circuit Court OF the
United States for the Southern District Of Georgia.
Courts of equity will not enjon judgments at law,
less tho complainant has an equitable defence
to the cause OF action OF which he could not
avail himself at law, because it did not
amoant to a legal defence, where he had good
defence at law Of which he prevented from avail
ing himself OF by fraud or accident, unmxcd with
negligence Of himself or his agents. lHendrckson
vs. Hincklcy, II How AS Where party has failed
to mako proper defence through negligence court
OF equity will enjou the judgment, but where It
appears that such defence has been prevented by
fraud accident, without fault OF the losing
party, court OF equity may grant relief il the
proofs are satisfactory Hungerford Gigcrson, 90
ID, l6I) Sufficient appears to show that goods of
great value owned by the mercantile firm Of J.
W. BuiingtonIand Co., that they. the LIST day OF
February 1865, sold the same to the firm Of King,
Grim 10 lliam eofth no nj firm,
ing the firm which made the purchase. Payment OF the
prico made at the Of purchase less $4,59l "a,
for which the purchasing hrn gave 10 the vendors
four promissory notes. payable TO the CREDITOR firm
bearer on tho first days Of APRIL May, June ana july
ensuing, with interest Debts OF the old firm
were still outstanding, Tor which Peoples, of the
firm, liable, and tor his security The four notes
gwen ny tne new urn were deposltca ID me hands oil
q third person, with the understanding that tho de-
positary TO hold the notes Tor that purpose,
that when the debts Of the old firm were presented
they might be paid by Peoples OF the new hrn and ia
that the amounts paid to be credited the
notes in the hands OF the depostary.
Subslstng liabilities pf TIE old firm were presented
for payment and were paid by Peoples, OF tho
firm, but the record shows that controversy
spectng same that dcpositary OF the notes
refused to allow the credits TO be made on the notes,
pursuant TO the original understanding. Instead OF
that he caused one Of the notes 10 DO put in suit TO
force payment OF tho same Pending that the
nrm brought bill in equity against the deposary and
the old nrW TO compel the respondents to carry the
understanding into effect What they prayed was that
the payments thus made should Endorsed on those
and they also claimed credit worthless COT
tonseed SOLD 10 them when they purchased the stock
OF goods oil the Old firm.
Litigation ensucd; bat IN the view taken OF the
1t Will not be necessary TO enter very fully into those
details. suits OF earnshmcnt were also instituted
behalf OF the creditors of the old firm against the de-
positary OF the notes, aud during their penaency tho
placed in the hands of certain attorneys
with directions that the notes be put IN the
name oS tho agent of the creditors prosecuting
suits OF garnishmcnt Pursuant 10 those directions
the ageut, James NJ Handley, the l4th Of April,
1873 sued the appellant and Peoples surviving part
OF the new firm which gave the notes, counting
O Endorsed
Service made and the deicn daLts appeared and
set up the following deiences:--u That they never
promised e. Payment before the suit instituted.
az Payment to the payccs and due notice to the
dorscc aud holder. a. That the notes were given Tor
a stock OF goods part OF which consisted OF lot OF
cottonsecd, warranted sound which proved 10 be
sound aud worthless o. Prior recovery against
the defendants TO the extent OF their liability
in the garnishment SUITS, and the full pay
ment OF the amount SO recovered. &C. Subse-
Qucnt salo OF the stock oil goods TO another
hrm for an amount greatly in excess Of what duo