New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-03-07
THE COURTS.
A VICTORY FOR THE JOCKEY CLUB.

victory Yesterday In the suit brought against 1t by
Edward CoTigan III the controversy which arose by
the clubs refusing 10 allow Corrgans horse Huron.
TO ran IN the rutuity race August 30. 1891. TIE
victory consists III decision by the General Term OF
Superior Court. dphodiHe the demurrer which the
club interposed 10 Corrigans complaint This decision
IS important defining just the position which such
associations as the Coney Island Jockey Club hold
toward the public.
When the club refused 10 allow Corrgans horse
to FOR the Futurity Stakes he secured mandatory
injunction from Judge Mctdam. In the superior
Cont ordering the Jockey Club 10 allow the horse
TO run The club obeycd the mandate literally and
allowed the horse to run but refused TO allow bets
TO be made on him or 10 consider the horse as In
the race at ALL Huron came In second. but the GLIB
refused to pay second money TO Corigan
After this race. through the influence OF the
Jockey club the Board OF Control OF the Jockey clubs
passed resolution refusing TO allow any OF Comsans
horses 10 be entered In OF the clubs which
had representatives In the Board OF Control Corrieah
brought a suit TO have this resolution rescihdeo Oh
the ground that tho Jockey clubs have certain privileges
allowed 10 them by the state whch are granted 10
no other corporations, and that in consequence Oh
these privileges they quasipub!c Institutions
aAd have no right 10 discriminate against h'T. III
this contention the court decides asals, MIN. Inc
opinion was written by Judge Dngro ana cohcurr'u III
by Chief Judge sedgwick. On the principal question
involved the Court saye:
II has not been claimed that any du'y IN LIN, '.e
premises WAS imposed by spcciho aop Of sen
cral principle, law and reasoning by aaIoey from
thing that settled in order to establish
nlan,id TO tlc relief sought. IL has been repeatedly
held that raroad telegraph ana riepnone ,p h
ness makes them 50. and they are. therefore, bonii
to the public on reaSonanc r' , M,' ae,nnIant
should be considered 20 be under duty sihar 10 'a,
Of the companies referred 70 TINS claim VIII n, no.
I.r. q defendant
corporation 1t is exercising no franchises w ,,
cothc it in the premise with any public aGy in ,hs
transaction Of lis business II has seen III to o'ier me
as Inducements through which to further It's business.
f. lis own way OF transac,ing It's own business ior
~ rrivatc ends II does not appear that IL mas
ever held itself for public service any more ,a
is done by a bank or an insurance company ~ may
choose It's own customers. and may do or rei"Se 10
d" any particular business offered it; M .o,n,.r,
has granted 10 II by the state the right to MAKE ana
register bets and sell pool, on IN" re, mon D1 the de-
frndant the fulAlment OF public duty ana ,,' ,mo
acceptance of the entry Of hor;e 70 rae Is dD"a
70 fmidl within reasonable limitations. There !, no
grant OF state aid TO the defendant Inc r'gn' 40 ,1
,c,sor hots and sell pools exists at common law ana
H. on,v taken away In this State by statute. Inc
prohibition Of the statute Is merely re'nove~ "0 IN
Ww,n% the defendant 10 sell polls there Is no more
grant OF state aid than there would or 70 .aver VIII
49, ~ certain prohibitions Of the Excise law were.
ms"pe or modiaed so as 20 be- favorable to the'
seller Tic Judgment must be rc,'sel ai,n JnrSrar
rendered In favor OF 'hc ocic"'''' "' "
with costs $780,, -, an
In the body Of the complaint c'rriean sets mp
damages for the amount Of second money III '"c
I.utiri,y Of 1891. but in the demand ior InhHm'h'
nothing about this claim Is sald AS no ach1m n
made for a money judgment the conr says INA, III u
cannot consider this subject In deodihg 'h' q"S"o"
II the demurrer
TIE LAWYER WILL NOT LET TIE SUIT DIE
The sult in which Mabel T.. DIsdalc Is trying to
r.cov.r $50 600 from James u. H. Grosvenor re-
tired wOolen manufacturer ana a mehbrr "i .io
Union Club, came up for trial. before Chei '""e'
sedgwick In the Superior Court yesterday ou' was
postponcd until to-day. Tile case is ~ p'cuh"r
condition Just at present for the reason ,ha' W.
Grosvenor declares that he has release from the
uloiptin. he having compromised the case with hcr
Eut the attorney for the plaintiff declares That nc
gave motto. TO the defendant long time before 'h'
alleged compromise effected that he. as attorney
had y lien on the suit for his fees. and that ccnse
ouefily II could not be- compromised without his In
terest I'm the litigation being taken care oil.
t,rosvcnor Is between hfiy and sixty years oh
In the complaint the plaintiff declares that While she
WAS living AT n boarding house kept 10 Mrs Fuller
ton AT No. 30 East Ti.irt9 first ST.. In November
1854 She met Grosvenor AID he became cA'r'mcN
ott.ntiv. 10 her she SAYS that she being courted
by another young man at the time, but shc gave nun
up for Gros,cnor. at which the other man became
exceedingly angry lie came 70 see her, and was 50 ad
belonging to her worth ~ 900 into the fire ia The
room and they were burned mp. She became III
from this treatment, and she declares that "rosvehor
nursed her and had his own phi. sicnns. prs. Henry
r. Walker and Montague swift. attend her. lie con
tInued his attentions until August. 1888, when he
went TO Europe. She declares that he promised tha'
when he came back from Europe he would marry her.
lie returned In October Of the same year. ana she
SAYS that the Hotel Bartholdi she requested MIN
TO keep his promise. lie replied that he did not want
TO be tied down. She brought suit for Soo,ooo
short time afterward for breach OF promise OF mar
rage.
The defendant alleges that the reason Tor not mar
rying the plaintiff that she was woman OF lh
moral character, and that she had been guilty OF III
proper conduct with numerous other men. Three
years after the original complaint was served an
amended answer served In tie case In which h'
agreement OF settlement was set up In further
defence OF the action. This would probably have
settled the had II not been for the fact that the
attorney for the plaintiff. samuel H. Randall. maze
his claim.
FREDERIC r. COuDERTs TESTIMONY Is WANTED
The motion to strike from the calendar the con
test over the will OF Daniel II. Fayerweather was
argued before Judge Patterson In the supreme court
special Term yesterday and decision was reserved