Year: 1868




In the Superior Court. yesterday, before Mr..
Justice Barbour, q suit brought by an attorney
against married woman for counsel fees In n divorce
case The suit was entitled soudhclm agt Comes At
he Conclusion of the plaintiffs case the counsel for the
defense asked for dismissal OF the complaint on the
ground that married woman COULD only make contracts
TO her separate property. The plaintiff claimed that
under the act Of 1862 she could make contract Judge
Barbour held that married woman could only be sued
contracts relating TO her separate property that the
only ground therefore which this action could be
tanned was that the wife belonged to herself and unfor-
son belonged TO her husband The complaint was there
fore dismissed.


During the examination of Andrew p. Van
Tuya bankrupt before the Register for the purpose Of
discovering whether he had down ali his property in
he declined To- ON the Tosns o or rSs
questions were certified to Judge Blatchford Tor his
cept Nos and ~" are irrelevant On their face,
and that question No 49, which refers to the value Of
the furniture and fixtures OF the bankrups place OF resi-
dence question &c." which il inquiry whether
any member Of the bankrupts family kept carriage and
horses recently aud question whether the bank
rupts wife keeps carriage and horses which he is
in the habit OF using also Irrelevant unless the bank
rup the property In question or has kept the horses
and carriage.


The following decision was rendered yester-
day in the u Circuit Court by Mr. Justice Nelson In
the suit OF the ". g. against 5000 gallons OF distilled
spirits This suit commenced March 1906 by infOr


nation in the District Court 10 forfeit certain property
for violation OF the Internal Revenue laws. and the
question before arising on the decision Of the Court
below s TO the portion OF the proceeds resulting from
the condemnation that rghtfuly belongs TO the Rfomer
The amount is $5906 So II is admitted that, according
the law It stood at the time the information
given and the seizure made. the uformer entitled 10


moiey, but that, before the final decree OF condcmna
ton the law had been changed and the amount placed
under the regulation of the Secretary OF the Treasury
cOrdng TO which, the amount TO be allowed would be
5000 The decree below was affirmed Appeals were
heard by Judge Nelson In the OF Miner ct al agt
the steamship Neptune and McIOOn agt Linguis ct al
After full argument In these the facts in which
reported at the time OF trial in the Court below the
Court reserved its decision


The case of Moore agt Bonnel came I'D in the
Superior Court Chambers, yesterday on an application
order 10 have some dispositions which have been taken
under q stipulation filed with the effect as though
taken de bee esSe to be used on the trial The
OF this case, set forth In the complaint
that the plaintiff who is lady teacher In OF the pub.
lie schools IN this city, became acquainted with the
defendant, who was then sergeant In n. Y regiment
stationed at Harris Island early In the year 1884 that he
visited her from that time until last Winter when
she heard that he had been circulating the story that they
had been married the 27th OF November 1854 which
wholly false that when accused Of the fasity OF
that statement he admitted IT, pleading In extenuatOn
OF the fasehOod that he wished To prevent the
OF other gentlemen, and made affidavit explicitly de-
nyng that they married. al her request that few
weeks thereafter she learned that the defendant st
circulating his former story and that then she forbade
the continuance OF his visits 10 her house and brought
this action for sander. The defendant who
and confined In Ludlowst jail but subsequently released
on ball. alleges that the plaintiff and himself were duly
November 1884, In the presence Of the wife and daughters
OF the clergyman witnesses that after that the plain
tiff continued 10 reside with her brotherinaw and he
with his parents and In support Of his allegation no
deposes TO having married the defendent on the day
named but cannot positively identity the plaintiff as the
TO whom he married the defendant and the wit
then present unable TO identify either OF the
this term and If not win certainly come up in the octo
Der term.