The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-02-01

in this controversy; but he does not seem to have
So must accept the consequences OF his vol
untary get. His contract WAS made and Is binding.
Tho statute establishing the salary docs not prohibit
the employ oil surgeons at Iess sum. II only
declared the maximum, not the minimum, OF compen-
sst,op. Judge Brady, IN CONCLUSION. reversss The
order Chief Justice Davis writes q concurring
opinion In which be follows substantially the same
course Of reasoning.
rhe appeal in tho case OF Caroline Graham against
Della NJ Graham from decree of the Surrogate adj
mitliDg a will 10 probate was also decided by the
Court. Judge Brady, who writes tho opinion, holds
that the appeal In tns case rests no substantial
foundation. The execution al the will. In form,
was proved by Two witnesses and no conflicting
dence Was presented. One OF the witnesses, William
Osborne, testified, 1t Is true, that Resigned as W.T.
before the tostator subscribed namc, but he
applied to tho Surrogate Tor lioory TO correct the
error which he made that statement and gave Ok
plHnation IN reference to that statement which was
entirely satisfactory TO the Surrogate and Is SO TO US.
There Is nothing shown In the case from which tue
Surrogate could draw the conclusion that William
j. OSBORNE, In seeking to correct hs evidence. was IN
tent Oh committing perjury II Is rather 10 the
credit Than the dscrcdt, VI witness that no should
seek TO correct errors, misapprchonsions and mis-
takes In his evidence aud suca conuuct favored oy
the Court IN giving him abundant opportunity to do
II. Having gwen IT, he Is TO DO judged. u Is true by
the rules OF aDay criticism and lair dealing, aud
must take the consequences In ths case ne was sus-
tanned and we see believe that the crti
cism erroncoua The decree should be affirmed,
Edward Carson, plaintiff In orror VS.. The People
OF the State OF Now York, defendants IN error.rho
prisoner convicted in the Court OF General Scs-
SONS. Inc Indictment chargei him with tho voiu-
shall retain in any place. within or adjacent 70 tho
buIit-up portion vi the city, any horse having tho
tue lac, TO Inc Board OF Health aud that such ANIMAL
shall removed without tho permit vi the same
Board. rho counsel Tor tho prisoner, upon the
trial before The Recorder, requested the Court
to charge tho jury that before they could convict
tho prisousr they must DO satisfied that he
know the horse had tho CHAMBERS To which
the Court repIied:''I refuse Ine proposition say
you. gentlemen, that II you beiievc this man had
eyes ana senses ana knowledge It is presumed he
nnu
To this refusal. the prisoners counsel excepted
Judge ingalls,, n his opinion, says That the Court
erred IN this ruling. II WAS u remark calculated 10
prejudice the Of tho prisoner with tho jury, and
inclined TO tho Impression that this Instruction
the jury more pungcnt and comprehensive
than tho learned Recorder at tho moment, In tho
hurry OF the trial. appreciated or intended The fact
that tho prisoner did not oier himself as witness Is
to be into confession OF guilt. We are
constrained TO hold that the learned Recorder erred IN
the ruling, which has been considered to tho pre-
judce Vi te prisoner, and The conviction must there
lore be reversed and new trial ordered.
William Campbell brought suit Tor divorce on tho
ground Of adultery against his wife. Annie Louisa
Campbell. The defendant denied the alleged adultery,
aud by way vi counter claim set up certain alleged
adulteries oil the plaintiff tor which she demanded an
absolute divorce aud ulimony pendente lite. Tho
plaintiff replied deuying tho charges OF adultery
brought against hil/ Pending roferonco TO TX tho
amount Vi aIimony tno paintin moved Tor leave 10
discontinue the action. This motion was denied, but
no allowed stipulate not TO testify 10 tho
allegations 81 adultery IN ms compliant. ne appealed
Chiei Justice Davis writing the opinion, yesterday
affirmed the order, holding that 1t was question Ut
discretion when was properly exercisod A cross APP
peal denying motion vucate order staying pro-
Ccedings on appeal Is also affirmed.
A suit was some time ago commenced by James b
Sheridan another against George y. Genet to
cover compensation Tor copy of tho testimony gwen
IN tho or Hszewell against Comson, tho trial
of which the defendant acted counsel tor HaZewelL
Tho case came before tho general Torn OF the
Supreme Court, ON appeal from judgment entered
ON tue verdict Of jury III favor OF mo plantih Tho
General Term yesterday reversed this judgment,
Judge Brady writing the OPINION, holding that when
lawyer orders copy Of the testimony tue prcsump'
ton Is no orders - Tor HIS client and not
himself