The New York Herald Newspaper, June 6, 1876, Page 8

8 si THE “OURTS. A General. Rapid Transit Field Day. Deadly Thrusts at the Greenwich Street Elevated Railroad. Important Charge by Recorder Naekett on the Excise Law. UNHAPPY MATRIMONIAL EXPERIENCES, Postponement of the Tweed and Sweeny Ring Suits. Litigations in regard to rapid transit are just now | monoyolizing a good share of the attention of the courts, Since Ch ef Justice Daly, of the Court of Com- ion Pleas, gave his decision contiouing the injunction granted (o Mr. Patton, proprietor of the Pacific Hotel, ng the New York Elevated Raitroad Company trom constrneting a turnout in front of his hotel, such Injunction haying been granted chiefly on the ground that the acts of the Legislature under which the rail- road com and ran its road wor stitutional, Judges Robinson and Van Brunt of the same Court, have been reviewing the case sub: mitted to them on al while sitting as judges at probit any assumes to construct eral Term, A decision was rendered yesterday, | both writing opinions,» embodying the results of their investigation, They both arrive at the fame couciusion as Chief Justice Daly, ¢ the injunction should be continued, Jus Robinson writes by far the longest and most elaborate opinion. The points taken down aro pretty much the same as those embodied in Justice Daly. Alter reviewing the facts of the case as heretofore given fully In the Henao, he holds that the plaintiff does not show in himself any title or inter in the land in the street in front of his lots, west of its centre line, beyond such possessory right to the use af the vault under the sidewalk as he is permitted to wjoy by suiferance of the Corporation, He then goes mm to state that the locus in quo within the bounds of Greenwich street was originally below mark, and belonged to the Corporation by virtue of the grants made by the Dongan and Mon!gomery charters of lands extending 400 feet beyond low water mark in the Hndson River; that by the Dongan charter all the | Streets within the city were granted by the Corpora. tion for public use; that by the Colonial act of Qctober 9, 2691, conlerring power the — Corpora- open streets, reasonable satisfaction was be given for ‘all the ground taken and ployed for use of streets; that the deed to Derick serving the right to lay out uWicn greet ght to the stre " y the Corporation allsuch uses for public purposes as the | may determine to be proper or expedient, No ex ception can be taken Lo the use of the sidewalks by any person for the construction of a vault under the sidewalk when such vaults do not interiere with the puolic ure of the street. ‘his, in fact, bas been long permitted, Judge Robinson goes on ‘to say that the act of 1867, under which desenuants claim to do the work complained of, only relerred to a railway to be operated exclusively by méans of propelling eadies at- tached to stationary ‘engines placed bene: face of the street through whicy the rairo, and should be conceaigd tro w. © the powers of the ture and operatic on tion to to abject Lo slature " t Greenwich street, sixth section pro: Jered wih compen- manuer provided re Ruilroad act interfere with street became no concession made by the corpor. erposed As a defence azdinst cuch pub- neither does the statute of pubhe Dply against a public nuisance. Private thjoyment must yield to public neccssity, ‘The plun- Wii's case, must, therelore, stand apon his right of re- dress as against the defendants’ acts as a public nut- , bY Which he is specially injured, unless entitled to claim compensauion uncer the sixth’ section of th The detendanis’ right to construct lis line norther: north to the Harl videw that Mf the gation should be made in of the Whenever such use of the section 7 1850. pubiie chap ter 489, which of un_experi- aental line of railway 1n the counties of New York and hester, They claim other rights under a sup- tal act passed June 3, 1865, This last tueonstitutional and ‘invalid, on the ground that tnore than one subject is expressed m the utle. | The title me’ ssumes to add something supple- mental to the former act, but what 18 to be the charac- ter of such supplementary ciment is not dixelosed, The subject of such | logisiation—to wit, the granting of addi powers to a corporation feferred to in the’ previous should have pressed in the title to ‘give 1 effect, tion ot revenues in the county was iy an additional sudject—one entirely foreign a railroad corporation, iy embrac none an addin is not nal power grantees wero required by gection 10 of the act of 1867 to construct on from (he Battery within one the act, Ay complete tne road within y the dete a8 assignees of Yonkers Patent Railway Cowpany £rantces of such fraucbises accepted the same with the Implied covenant ou theit part that they would con- struct the road within the time limited, and whatever the defendants have done in the c ction of the Toad since the expiration of their grant is a nuisance that may be abated by any one especialy injured to the extent of the wroug done bim. The unexeented act of 1867 to build the road ¢ regarded The act ot which defendants claim reviewed and resuscitated all the rights which they bad lost by non aser of the original grant, Judge Robinson holds to be contrary to sections 17 aud 1S of the constitution, and theretore void. The Legisiature had no right to Authorize a railroad to lay down tracks when such might did not exist under statutes prior to the amendment of article 3 of the constitution. In other words, the Leg isiature could not confirm what it had no right to grant, It could operate to coniirm wets already done, but could Not justily or authorize the laying o track than such as bad already been | Judge Rob- insov thinks that the claim for compensation made by the plaintiff for interfering with bis vault does not en- title him to an injunction; but being purely entitled to it Upon previous considerations, the order appealed from should be ailirmed. Judge Van Brunt holds that the forbidding the granting to ‘any pri halt mile rirom the passage of lays excepted), and to ars thereafter, This the West Side and , failed to do. The . power to lay ‘n tracks, i8 0 platn that if the tramers Of the act of 1575 bad studied it they might have con- ttructed a bill above criticism. He is reluctantly obhged to come to the conclusion that the act of 1875 is hot 4 mere waiver of forfeiture of the act of 1867, but one conterring new authority, and the injunction must { de sustained, While the above decisions were being carefully read by persons interested in rapid transit, Judge V Hoesen, boiding Special Term of the Court of Comm ' Pleas, was jisteniug to the opening in the sart bi ) by the Ninth Avenue Company agaiust the Blevated Ravroad Com; u dperation and use of an elevated railroad in Ninth pue, and also to restrain the operation of the Greenwich Hircet road on the ground that {Cis unlawtully operated, i Watitiean unlawful structare and that it isa public uisance. There was quite an array of z the case Mesers John M. Scribner and P. presenting the Ninth Avenue Railroad Company and x-Judge Emmot and Messre. A. J. Vanderpoel and C, Delevan, the Elevatea Railroad Company. Jud; Briggs. ono of the judgos of the Court ot Common Picas tn Piiladeiph cu Aseat onthe bench by the ‘ Hae of Judge ¥ Mr. Scribner opened the ng several hours. He bexan individual thought he bad transit. Applic: ny to assist in the solu probiem, which act was passed on April f year, He then recited the provisions of the | Act with reference Ww % previous act passed in 1850, to which the latter act’ was supplementary. ¢ Alan was conceived for au elevated railroad. The feutleman who procured 118 possage had a company incorporated under the name West Side and Yonkers Patent Railroad C They were ex Ciuded (rom the strects of th YY @ subsequent Act the Legislature aiso exclused the coutinuation of Any such road within the city limits. The streets of New York being thus closed against these gor ties hey made a further application to bhe Legistature fot an act passed providing lor the contmuati experimental railroad hai a wale above Bs. By this act tho engines were propelling cabie. He read m: 4 and com: ented on the fact thatthe commissioners under the tet were to be paid by the railroad company. Ho tontended that all tne ri conterred by Vis act expired on April 22, 1 Notwithstanding this, howover, the road was ‘continued from time to i Mine til it has now reached Fiity-minth a they 4 dave also constructed a Kind of road greatly different ; Tom that allowed to be but for even experimental + a He next read the act of 168, commenting a Ipon its provisions He insisted that various switches ind turp-outs are being constructed withont auy legal jority. They expecied to prove, aot hag | that the | 4 a levaied road overhangs the Ninth enue Railroad, but that drip 1 damage the jars; that the horses are me, and made (oo nervous 10 do their work well, ~ “Tne taking of testimony will be begun (his morning, Od it is probable that it will ocoupy several days. ‘etore Judge Sedgwick, holding Superior Court, the opinion of Chief | high water | to other | bh the sur. | r railroad | | Honor, epectal Term, counsel yesterday to urge to @ ‘conclusion argument on motion to continue the injunction —_ against the Gilbert Elevated Raliroad recently granted at the suit of the Sixth Avenue Railroad Company, aod which restrained the former irom building their road over defendant's track between Amity atreet and Fitty- ninth street. Judge Sedgwick ordered the matter ad- journed until Thursday next, at which time the argu- ment will be positively continued. Although Chief Justice Monell heard @ portion of the argument and | was prevented from hearing it entire on account of ill- ness, the reargument, of course, will be de novo. RECORDER HACKET!’S CHARGE. General Sessions yesterday Recorder Hac! dehvered the following charge to the Grand Jury :—Many com- plaints which involve provisions of the Excise law will be laid before you. This law is confused and obscure, especially in some of tts penal provisions, which seemed to be the view of the Court of Appeals when it considered in a recent exeise case the subject of pun- is.ments upon which many judges had decided dif- ferentiy, But this much is certuin, if i still remains a misdemeanor to sell intoxicating liquors on Sunday then in any case of conviction here I shall entorce that law as much as any other. The church- goer and the citizen of religious scruples are en- titled to be preserve from sights and sounds which the law probibits. But at the same time the letter of the Excise law should not be strained against its in- | tent, nor its. manner of enforcement converted into burlesque: or oppression, I cannot subscribe to the right of the police to a subordination of offences against the Sunday law, nor to make themselves spies upon citizens, although this lattor is naturaliy to be expected of a system that compels the members of the force to become spies upon Neither can [ subscribe to the extraordi- m of the police to arrest without warrant f neanor except one committed im the public co of a policeman and which also di. | reetly Ives a breach of the perce. Procedures | born’of a military education or the warning of a pro- vost marshal ought not to be forced upon municipal police, T distinctly subscribe to the foliowius doctrine in Wharton’s Criminal La And there is strong | reason for the position that the right even ns to offences coinmitted in the officer's presence is litnited to felonies, | breaches of the peace and such misdemeanors as cannot bo stopped or redressed except by immedi ate arrest, Why, if the misdemeanor is completed and | the oftender is not likely to escape, should the cheek | andsateguard of a warrant be waived? Constables and | other minor officials are apg. eve 10 abuse, expeci- | ally with the poor, their powor; the policy of the W not only requires that they should be Kept under | strict control, but that to prosecution for private mis- demeanors there should be responsible private prose- cutors. In conjormity with this view it was rightly 3 Fifth Lansing, p. 84, that beither a Justice of the | Peace nor a constable can, at common law, arrest with- | out warrant a person cemmitting an illegal act in his | presence, unless suck act be a felony or involves a breach of the peace; and that crueity to an animal, | | though a misdemeanor, is not such an offence ax au: thorizes an arrest without warrant.’? I make these aiiusions because complaints may be made before you for false imprisonment, which olfence is. a misdemeanor at common law, and has been per- tinently discussed by Mr. Bishop'in his valnable trea- | tise on criminal law, The offence aguinst the Sunday law consists in selling wines and intoxicating liquors, Alleged breaches of this law present questions of fact not readily dlcernible by the senses, yet a policeman, under inatructions, seizes upon a man found selling some Jiqnid, organizes within his own police breast a courtand jury on the spot, himself adjudicates tho liquid to be intoxicating, and, without warrant, arrests acitizen who can be just as weil found and arrested upon the warrapt of a criminal magistrate the bext morning as at the hour ee 4 policeman can do this for a supposed —mis- demeanor, then he can do it for every alleged offence. | He eon pull a reporter from his desk.on a charge of ymitting a libel, ora broker trom his office on the that he is there taking usury, or a Indy trom a carriage on a plea of driving at a higher rate of sped than that which is permitted by law, Poli a Jommissioners should instruct their men to do nst liquor dealers what they could not do against a | multitude of those who offend against the law of mis- demeanors 18 a puzzle! It nas deen suppose, I am aware, that section 16 of the act of 1857, relating’ to intemperance, directly authorizes arrests without warrant, but 1 do not subscribe ) | tothis view, That section makes # the duty of the | police to arrest all persons found actually engaged in violating that law, but :his is only declaratory of their common law duty, and does not say without warrant, But the same section goes on expressly in the same connection with the arrests to refer to the magistrate’s duty to hear complaints and issue warrants, Penal statutesare construed favorably to municipal nghts | The magistraey of this ctty have not, at least la ely, | shirked their duty in fssu ng warrants under the Liquor or Sunday law, and it is no more trouble (what- ever it may be to the police) for the istrate to hear the officer's story ut the prisoner, when applying for a warrant ae when the policeman has the offender before the Court u iMegal arrest without warrant. I make these remarks in order to guide you in your action, Let us entorce Jaws, however impolitic or severe the e, but let all concerned in the administration of jut emake a due administration and with due process without infringement of constitutional rights, The ob- jeots sought by the San Liquor law ts to repress and restrain disorder and gi observe Sund: day of rest and quiet, Selling Hqnor on Sunday is not a crime; it is only an offence born of the police regulations which the State makes concerning practices that may develop into v If liquor dealers are disorderly or their places of business disquieting, then arrests with- out warrants will be proper, and this more because of acts tending to breaches of the peace than because of probable ofences against the law. You, gentlemen, and this Court, will, without doubt, rightly enforce the law after due presentation of The records of tnis Court show that neither juries, district attorneys nor judges have hesitated to do their whole duty against of- fending liquor dealers in cases when properly presented and duly tried, The Grand Jury then retired. A DOCTOR'S MARITAL ENCES. The case of Dr. Nathan P. Rice against his wire, Anon B. Rice, came up yestorday before Judge Donohue, in Supreme Court, Champers, upon an application by the wile for alimony and counsel fee. In her answer to the complaint Mrs. Rice, through her counsel, Mr. N, A. Chedsey, denies the acts of alultery charged against her, and this pleading, together with her own aMdavit EXPERI. of what property the Doctor is possessed of, constituted the basis of her application, In reply to her application Mr. John D. “Townsend, the plaintiffs counsel, read a voluminous affidavit of the plaintiff, in which he sets forth a full history of thetr married life. He states that he firat met the do- fendant in 1863, on Broadway, in the evening, and that at that time sho was a kept mistress, but at the same time had a husband living in Baltimore, whom she de- serted, and who afterward obtained a divorce {rom her; that she was kuown, when he made her acquaintance, as Nannette F. Darriox, ber married namo, as he sub- sequently learned, being Mrs. James D, Trego, and her maiden name really Anna B. Killin; that for many years she hived with him as his mistress, bat that sub- nt to the divorce obtained by her husband they together as man and wile. Ho says further that he discovered t John Van Dolsen, Jr., at ab " | Pa., and in confirmation of it produced the testimony taken here some months since of the clerk of the hotel, together with the register of the hotel; that both she and Van Dolzen coniessed their intimacy tv him, and that he conironied them and obliged Van Dolven to promise in writing, which writing he also produced, | that he would provide for her. The Doctor then goes ‘on to say that he was foolishly fond of the woman, | and believing that, if she was removed from the in- fluence of Van Doisen and if he solemnized their mar- riage that he might still redeem her, that he did unite himeel! publicly in marrige to her and took from Van Doisen & papor, a copy of which was submitted, agreeing to leave her fuiure in his bands; that im- mediately after the marrage theit imiimacy was re- newed, and finding that it was useless to make further efforts to redeem her, he employed several detectives, whose affidavits were also submitted, who discovered that she Van Dolsen were meeting at a house of fame in Williamsburg. The Doctor that if the Court’ should deter. allow any alimony or counsel eo it should depend on ihe defendant's willingness to hear the issaes tried immediately. Letters of Van Dolsen, Jr... to the defendant were submitted. The let- ters are exceedingly commonplace and replete with bad spelling, and, consequently, their publication would add no lustre to this specialty of literature. In closing, Mr. Townsend remarked that it must be exceedingly pain- ful toa woman, after having received the devoted al tentions of su new admtrer, alth deticient in the rn said Mr. Tow quoted im one of his changing scenes of hie,’ he actoaliy spells scenes seans.’”? Judge Donohue took the papers, reserving his decision. i further asked mine to owing epistles, ‘But sull the THE RING SUITS. ‘The trials of the Tweed $1,000,000 suit and the $7,000- 000 suit against Peter B. Sweeny were set down for yes- terday, before Judge Westbrook. Promptly on time Judge Weetbrook put in an appearance, as also did the array of opposing counsel in both suits, and a large and interested crowd, who still show a great interost in whatever concerns the great ex-Moguls of the Court House Ring. It is bardiy necessary to say that neithor of the detendents was present, and, further, that there WAS no great surprise that the trials were postponed tll the lal, The proceedings, however, brief as they Were, were not devon of interest, The panels of jurors struck for each trial were called, and thirteen out of the twenty-four answered in ono | and twelve in the other case, Mr. Wheeler H. leckbam moved the Sweeny ease for trial. Mr, Heach objected that there was a tactt ander- standing on (he former oceasion that for the general convenience the case should go over to the fail, Mr. Peckhatn said he was instracte” to pross the case d unless the other side moved for an adjournment he thought the ease shou'd go on, “Mr. Bench said the genticman did nos deny that it At the opening of the June term of the Court of | held in New York, in 1871, by Butolph vs, Blunt,> Why the | ¢ to those citizens who strictly | would be for the convenience of all to adjourn over, but he was under instructions from some one, Pee! under in- es,” inter Mr. ham, “1 am structions from the Attorney General.” “Yes; weil, the Attorney General is a very small dummy in this matter,’’ retorted Mr, Beach, “1 do not think it {8 courteous to refer to the Attd®- ney General in such language,”’ answered Mr, Peck- ma “I hope the gentleman will not put me in a position which I must explain by referring 10 a conversation with bim,"* continued Mr. Beach, Mr. Peckham declared that he had no objection. After some further passage between counsel the Court adjourned the case to the second Monday in October at twelve M., at Which time it was announced the jurors must be in attendance, Mr. Dudley Field, Jr., moved to adjourn the Tweed case until'the same day and discharge the present jury. Mr. Peckham said it was probable that if the Court of Appeals affirmed the $6,000,000 judgment they would bot go on with this case, as the judgment is hkely to be Jarger than the collection, ‘The jury were not discharged, but the case was set down for the second Monday in October, INTERESTING TO TAXPAYERS. In the suit brought by Mr. Davia Dudley Field, to recover taxes paid by him in error on a neighbor's property, reported in Sunday’s Heratp, the Comp- troller bas directed an appeal to be taken, A very im- portant question is involved. If Judge Van YVorst’s decision, that a taxpayer may pay on a street number instead of on the ward number, is sustaingd, it is claimed by the Comptroller that it will result in end, Jess confusion and be the cause of great annoyance to taxpayers; that all property in the city is described in deeds and 1n all official documents by its ward number; that this number 1s invariable; that street nunibers on the contrary are frequently ged; that vacant lots have no street numbers, and to permit pay- ments to be made by the street numbers, or require the — clerks the tax office guess the ward of any particular without having access to tho deed of the pro erty would not bea judicious system for taxpayer that every owner of pgoperty in the eity ought to know the number contafed: in hig deed; that at tho foot of cach tax biil issued from the Recetver’s office is a notice in large letters, “On paying this bili be cer- tuin that the ward pumbers are correct;” that when a taxpayer does not know hia ward numberevery informa. tion 18 given him at the Registers office trom the official maps; as in the case of Mr. Field paying on street puin- bers instead of ward numbers, and that taxpayers sometimes pay their neighbors’ taxes and thus destroy the lien held by the city on that property, What be- comes of that lien under Judge Van Vorst’s decision 18 a matter for the court to scttic, as it will be presented on appeal from the late decision of Judge Van Vorst. EXECUTORS’ COMMISSIONS. In the matter of the estate of James Eager, de- ceased, Surrogate Calvin has rendered a decision ad- | verse to the claim of F. Roberts, third executor, for commissions, made under the following circum: stances:—The testator died in August, 1874, and very soon after the executors received letters testamentary and proceeded to make an inventory, the executor Roberts having notice of the time and place, but be failed to attend, The other execators signed, verified and filed the inventory, but Roberts refused to do so. Jonathan H, and Joseph Eager took geveral and | active charge of the estate, disposed of the same aud paid the specific legacies pursuant to the provisions of the will, The question came up on the final ac- counting, was Roberts entitled to commissions as ex- ecutor? On behalf of Roberts {t wos. urged that he was oxeluded from the performaace of his duty as executor, The Court, reviewing all the circumstances of the case, says:—"It is unreasonable to suppose that Roberts periormed his Cuty as such executor by rely protesting against what was done by his asso- tes, Ifhe had been sole executor, and had not re- ceived or paid ont any of the sums of money belonging to the estate, but had neglected to pertorm his duty us executor, it is clear he would not have been entitled to commission. Mr, Roberts has no standing to object to the correctness of the account as rendered.” |THE NETTEL EXTRADITION CASE. ‘Ihe tong contested Nettel extradition case was again up yesterday in the United States Court, before Com- missioner Osborn, It will be remembered that Leo- pold Nettel and Sigismund Nettel, father and son, na- tives of Austria, were arrested here on application of the Austrian Consul, based on documentary testimony forwarded to him, in which the accused were charged with jorgery, an extraditable offence. Ex Judge Joa- chimsen and W. Loew appeared prisoners, the former named counsel resuming an ar gument ii which he contended that the documentary evidence relied on for extradition did not sustain wwe charge of forgery; that the papers alleged to havo been forged were not submitted to the witnesses who now assert that the sixnatures are forgeries; Ubat the de- positions of the witnesses are not sworn to; that the Austrian government nad made no demand for the ex- tradition, and that the alleged forged documents aud pers are not producea before the Court. Judge Seacthineen argued the points at great length and was followed by ex-Governor Svlomun. reversed, ‘ GENERAL TERM DECISIONS. Batches of decisions were handed down yesterday hy | both the General Torms of the Superior Court and the Court of Common Pleas. As the facts in all the cases wore fully given at the trials, only the more important cases are noticed, beginning with those rendered in the Superior Court, General Term, Harvey Weed brought suit against the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company upon a policy of insurance obtained in November, 1864, on the life of James M. Benedict, which policy was subsequently assigned to the plaintiff, Three years later Beredict committed suicide and on the trial the complaint was dismissed The decision was on the ground that it was provided in the policy that the same should be vod in caso the insurer came to his death by his own hand, The General Term affirms the decision of the Court below, this Court holding, throngh Judge Speir, who writes the opinion, that the provision avoiding the policy was a condition precedent, that it was not proven that the deceased was insane when he committed suicide, aud that sanity beg a man's normal condition, the deceased must be presumed to have been sane ut the time of his death, An tmportant decision was gven in another insur- | ance case, the suit being brought by Bertha Conen | against the Continental Life Insurance Company. The policy was obtamed oa the life of plainuf’s husband, which poley was suosequently transferred to the Em? pire Life Insurance Company for ber benefit, On the transier there was no medical examination of the hus- band, the transter being allowed upon the examination made at the time of taking out the origival policy, In this exami jon the husband stated that he had net beon sick Jor seven years; that he had no cough, and that during that time had no medical attendance. lt turned out, however, that between the time of tak- ing out the policy and the time of the transier he had been sick and under the doctor's care, Upon bis death, therefore, shortly afterward, the Empire Company ree fused to pay the amount of the insuranee. Tbe releree gave a verdict for the plaintiff, This Court now reverses this Judgment. Judge Curtis, in the case of Gillotti against Anna M. Jackson, granted a motion to set aside a verdict in Javor of the plaintiff, the same baving been made on tae ground of a communication from Judge Speir to the jury, in the absence of defendant's counsel, ihe Court reverses Judge Curtis’ decision, holding that Judge Spoir bad a right to state the simple facts of the Jaw to the jury. ie the General Term of the Court of Coimon Pleas there was given a decision of importance in counecuion with the banking business in the suit of the Security Bank against The National Bank of the Republic. The point involved was the submission of testimony as to the usage prevailing among bankers in regard to certified checks, and the liability of # bank to pay the amount of acertiled check even though the amount had been fraudulently altered and raised as in the present case. Such testimony was not allowed, and on account of ite rejection the that that which bas grown up as a general and well tablished usage ina large commercial city lke the city of New York by the uniform acquiescence of thos who are best its operations and eft is of higher consideration asa rule in controlling the transactions of business than any rule founded upon the reasoning of courts, however logical or apparent, because the former rests upon a stronger foundation, the general experience and aquiescence of the commer- cial community. in the caso of Hennessy against Wheeler, the fa- mous bottle trade mark case recently arguod at the General Term of the Common Pleas by Mr. Osvorno tor the plaints and Mr. Arnoux for tbe respondents, the Court aflirm the judgment in favor of defendant, holding that plaintiffs’ allegation that their bottics are quart and piut bottles dispenses with the necessity ot proof of that fact, that the evidence of the Custom House entry is conclusive of the deceptive character of ttles, that pasiing bels on such botties disen- to any aid in a cours of equity, the ection of the public being the fundameutal prin- ple of trade mark law, and which is here violated because thereby consumers are deceived. In the suit brought by Martin B. Brown against the city to recover some $2,500 tor printing election ballots, the Court holds, Chief Justice Daiy writing the opin= Jon, that it was, under the act of 1874, within the power of the Board of Supervisors to provide jor the printt of ballots for submitting the constitutional amendinents to the electors, The city is beid lable for the payment of she bill. An important decision was rendered in tho suit brought by Charies F. Lawry against the Lake Snore and Michigan Southern Railroad Company. The Court holds, Judge Robinsow writing the opinion, that the purchase or sale by the defendants of railroad tickets over ratiroads with whieh they are not m connection, is illegal through its prohibition by the laws ot this State. DECISIONS, SUPREME COURT-—CHAMBERS, By Judge Barrett, May and another vs. Strauss; Wertheimor vs. Strauss; vs Strauss; Miller Vs, Strauss; May vs 88.—Tho plaintiffs were entitied to judgment, be- cause the deiendants owed them the amount claimed and not beeause the defendants had such amount in their hands belonging to the piamuis, The detend- ants had no money of plaintilt's consequently were | not liable to arrest. Second, besides, the viaintiis do, . not deny the course of dealing set forth by and Leopold and their knowledge thereof, The it of Townsend as to what plaintiffs testified to upon the trial 18 of no moment, dt is too plain to adit of arga- iment that, upon the undenied course of dealing and understanding set forth tm the affidavits of Strauss and Leopold, an order of arrest will not lie. The motion must be granted, with $20 cosis of one motion. Ida Ward ys, Francis £. Ward.—Report now con- firmed and judgment of divorce granted to plaintiff. Clark vs Clark,—The papers on which the order of poblication was granted and the order should have becu submitted. But tho testimony is insuilicient in itself and it has been too carelessly taken, The record 18 too full of erasures and interfinentions, bot betore and after the reference, and there must be greater care and precision to justify so important a decree aa that t for, Whitebead vs, Kennedy. —I did not express the opin- jon that a married woman could not, by @ proper in- strumeat, charges her separate estate. The ruling simply took the fact of covertnre into consideration, with the necessity for spectal and unusual provisions an the undertaking, and the doubt which the ruling in Woolsey vs. Brown cast upon her responsibihty. That and the entire insuflicency of the surety as a matter of fact was the cause of the rejection, and | see noth- tng to aiter my decision. Keeley vs. Mathews —Although the General Term eave defendant jeave to renew on further papers, I do not sce that their case has been strengthened except in matiers of form. As the plaintif waives the charge of bad construction, and defendants admit acollision, there is nothing left but th peghgence and damage. On the form have but three eye witnosses and the plaintiff eight, on the latter defendants had eleven (but three of whom are of real importance—viz, th? three who made the repairs); plaintiff a like number, of about the: same character und importance as eight of defendants eleven. On this head leendants are entitled to but little favor, as thay refpaé have the damage estimated, and make a vory “eproper statement in that connection. Upon the whole, the motion should be denied without costs, upon plaintiffs stipulaung within ten days to waive ali charges of improper construction and to per- mit the testimony of defendants witnesses to be taken on ten days notice before a judge im chambers, in Buflato, tn hke manner and with the same effect, or, if twken conditionally, and to be read upon the trial, | without objection except as w substance, The Gilbert and Baker Manufacturing Company va Abbott ct, al.—The defendants offer to stipulate not to | dispute on the trial the items of plaintifl’s bill, either as to number, character, value or price, except two certain charges of interest. On such stipulation being filed the motion will be demed with costa, Besides, 1% is Vory doubtiul whether under weil sottled ruins thero 18 more than one item involved—viz., the gay machine and generator putin, Straka vs, The New York Co-bperative Cigar mann- facturing Company.—Mouon for injunction denied and temporary injunction diasolved, with $10 costs, The Sun Mutual Insurance Compady vs, Hubbell.— There js nothing in the answer calling for a reply, and the motion must be denied, with $10 costs, Meurs vs. Freod.—Motion granted in this suit, and also in the bill, All the parties are enjoined. A re- ceiver must be appointed, but neither of the parties wili be appointed such rece It the parties can agree upon a periectly disinterestca receiver he will be appointed; if not the Court will appoint such receiver, $10 costs of the-motion to abide the event, Boardman et al, vs, The pe ay and Michigan Southrn Railroad” Company.—No account need bo taken in ‘order to settle the — principles upon which the right of the parties are to be determined, and tt 18 not cren certain that an account will bo essential to an effective decree, Hf, in the course of the trial, it should so turn out, or if an account should be necessary to curry the judgment into effect, the Special Term hus ample power in the premises, Besides, on the papers before me the present motion 18 open to the objection of laches, and the opposing affidavit claims that it is made for tho purpose of delay, ‘Tha motions must be denied, with $10 costs, In one case, Miles vs, Titus,—A(ter a review of this Iam of the opinion that the referee was right and that the deiend- ants cannot be held; at the same time there were acts looking very like a disregard uf the injunction and the plaintiffs were justified in moving and ought not to be muicted in costs. The detendants, by a little activity which a bigh regard for the order of the Court woud have cvused them to exhibit, might have prevented what was dope with all this attendant tigation and ex- penses, and consequently they ought not to recover their costs or disbursements, The excoptions are over- ruled and the reierce’s Feport confirmed: except as to the costs and the motion is denied without costs. Sherwood ve, Sherwood, &c.—The defendant's claim is that he desires to sell the good will and trade mark to pay debie, that is substantiaily to pay himself, Yet in his answer he says that the good will is worthless and denies that bis testator owxed any patent right for paper called “T,” evidently referring to this trado mark. Thus bis present statement, that unless he is left free to dispose of these assets their value may be totally logt to the estate docs not ‘seem to be in- genuous, Tho fact is, the defendant as executor took possession of the basiness and claims to nave con- tinued it for his own accouvt, notwithstanding a clause in the will directing him to share the profits with the testator’s widow, and be admits the use of both the good will and the irade mark, which, as ever, it was his duty to c@iserve, Ido notthink even on the facts presented by the defendant that he ought, pending the trial, to be permitted to auction off or sell these assets, Motion granted, with costs, but with leave to the de- fendant, if successiul betore the refereo, to move to dissolve, Tuthill vs. Omberson.—I think, in view of the mem- orandum made on the decision of the motion for a re- cetver, that the plaintiffs should have an opportunity of meeting the difficulty suggested by Judge Donobue, and on general principles the plaintiffs ought to be per- miftted to trame their complaint as May s¢em to then to be best. { will, theretore, permit the amendment, upon payment of the coats of the cause to the presont time (but without any extra allowance) and $10 of opposing the motion, and leave thereupSn to re: the motion for a decree and injunction. I wish it to be distinctly understood, however, that I do not pass any question with respect to the value of the complaint, as, thus amended, I simply allow the plaintfts to plead de novo. Wallace & Sons vs, Castle.—The answer, while it ig- nores the plaintif as a corporation, yet aamits by not denying that between July 1, 1875, and July 29, 1875, the defendants sold, ior the benefit and account of the Plaintiffs (that is again of the corporavion specified in the caption), goods of the value of $666 86, That was an admission sufficient to entitle the plamtiffto rest. But, Jurther, | think tho corporate existenco of plaintiffs was proved suiliciently under tho laws, both of Connec- tieut, which were rend in evideace, and of {his Stato, found in the adjudged cases, Motion fur now trial lenied, By Judge Lawrence. In the matter of Allen; in the matter of Bloome; in he matter of Brown; in the matter of Galliers; in'the ter ot Meredith; in tho matter of Karle; in the atier of Higgins; in the mater of Abrey; in the mat- tor of the Murray Lill Presbyterian Church; in the matier of Hyde; 1m the matter of Stockwell; in the matter of Donnelly; in the matter ot Curtis; in the matter of Hortman;’ in the matter of Pond, und in the matter of Scnultz (two orders).—Orders denying mo- tions granted, SUPREME COURT—CIRCUIT—PART 3, 2 By Judge Larremore. Southwick vs The First Nationai Bank of Memphis, Tenn. —An allowance of $150 granted to plainuiff. SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. By Judge Sedgwick. Murray vs. Mitchell et al.—Reteree’s report con- firmed and judgment of foreclosure and sala ordered. Dietz vs, Farish.—Mouion grantea. I think the de- fendunt ts entitied to a general stay of proce dings. "Negus ej al. vs. Moore et al.—Motjon granted, with- ‘out costs. Duily vs. The Ohio and Mississipp! Railroad Com- pany.—Motion to open judginent granted upon pay- ment of $10 costs and disbursements of term where de- fault was taken, The Madison Avenue Baptist Church vs, The Baptist Church in Oliver street,—Ordered that $6,300 addi- tional security be fied. ‘The National Park Bank vs. Grinst; Bryce vs. Aldner, Jr. ; Crawford vs. Sandiord Iringiey vs. Andersoo.—Ordered on short calendar, Walters ot al vs. Barnard.—Inverrogatories settled, Conner vs. Gavin.—Order that plaintit file security for costs, Nathan vs Hengel.—Defendant discharged from custody, Struppman et al. va, Muller.—Order continuing J. C. Julius Langbem, receiver, &c. ‘The National Trust Conipany vs. Roberts et al.-—Case and exceptions or.cred on file nunc pro tune Merrill vs. Beach etal. ; Johnston vs. Halligan; Cert vs. Hoc; Morrissey vs. Kiralty et al; Levy et al va. Burgess; Robinson vs. The Middietield Marble Co. ; Koss va Harden; Parsong vs. Sutton et al; Candler, Jr., ve. ‘Tho Merchants’ Fire insurance Co.’; Candler, Jr. vs. The Williamsburg City Fire Insurance Company } Candler vs. The Mechanics and Traders’ Fire In- surance Company; Candier, Jr., vs. The Commercial Fire Insurance Company; O’Brien, &c., vs. The Me- chanics and Traders’ Fire insurance Company; O’Brien vs, The Commercia: Fire Insurance Company } O'Brien vs. The Merchants’ Fire Insurance Compan; Orders granted, By J nage Sanford. Way ve. Howe et al.—Motion granted, with costs. Gescheldt vs, Ahrous. Motion to Vacate order dented, with $10 costs, Bruuner vs. Branner.—Motion dented, Cannon et al. vs, Scott et al.—Motion grantea, with $10 costs. Opinion. Way vs. Howe et al,—Order settled, By Judge Spei Ross vs. Harden.—Case and exception ordered on file, nunc pro tuuc, as of May 4, 1876. SUPERIOR COURT—GENERAL TERM. By Judges Cartis and Sedgwick. Caher vs. ‘ihe Continental Lite Insurance Company, — Judgment reversed, with costs, By Judges Sedgwick and Spotr. Doyle and another vs. Sharpe.—Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appel abide it Cl va. Hamil. —Judgment affirmed, with costs, Gillovto vs Jackson and another.—Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements to be taxed. MacPherson, &c., v8. Smali eval. —Judgmont affirmed, with costs. . Morehouse vs. Yeager.—Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to be taxed. Bond vs MoNif et al.—Judgment afirmed, with costa. Nolan vs, The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company.—Plaintifl’s oxceptions overruled and judgment ordered for d nt, With costs, Witowski ve, Brennan, &c.—Judament reversed, with cosis to appellant to abi event, and new trial ordered. Johnson vs. Luxton,—Pialntif"s exceptions sustained and new trial granted, with $: 3 abide event. Opinion by Judge Sedgwick. The Blackstone Natioual Bank vs. Bogart.—Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Opinion by Jud wick. | “Rust va Hanselt and another.—Judgment reversed mee ea ee ee Ph and new trial ordered with coats to appellant to abide Weld vs, Tho Mutual Benefit Insurance Company. — Judgment affirmed with costs. COMMON PLEAS—GENERAL TERM. Before Chief Justice C. P. Daly and Judges Robinson, Van Brunt and J. F. Daly. Davis vs. Davis, —Order affirmed. Cole va, Dalton.—Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Patten va. The New York Elevated Ra'lroad Com- pany.—Order for tnjunction aflirmed, with #10 costs, The New York Dyeing and Printing Establishment vs. Fox.—Judgment aflirmed. Hammersiein vs, Morgan,—Judgment offirmed. Lovin vs, ‘Lavermore,—Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, Opinion by Judge Van Brunt. Lussen and another ys, Jacobson.—Judgment re- versed, new trial ordered, costs to plaintiff to abide event. Camblos vs, Butterfleld.—Order affirmed, with $10 costs, Hennessy et al. va Wheeler et al.—Judgment affirmed, with ‘costa, Redman vs. Smith,—Judgment reversed, Kennedy vs, The Mayor, &¢ —Judgment affirmed, Deviin vs. Gallagher.—Order distnissing complaint vacated and @ new trial ordered, Curley va. Gordon.—Judagment reversed, order of reference vacated aod a new trial ordered. urseil ot al.—Judgment affirmed. Davis vs. Bechstem—Judgment affirmed, with costs, except as it is directed to be modified in the opinion; order to be settled. Brown vs. The Mayor, &c.—Judgment affirmed. , Thornton vs. The St. Paul and Chicago Railroad Com- pany. —Order appealed {rom atlirmed except as directed in opinion. Order to be settled. Guiterman ot al, vs. The Liverpool, New York and Philadelphia Steamship Company.—Judgment reversed and uew trial ordered, Costs to abide event. Hogau vs. The Mayor, &c,—Judgment allirmed, with costs, Bleecker, Jr., 8. Johnson, &c.—Judgment affirmed, with costs, Laney va. the Lake Shore and Mich‘gan Southern Railroad Company,—Judgment of Marine Coort, Ger eral Term, reversing judgment of Special Term, al jirmed and judgment absolute fur defendants, with costs, Prousser ya, Florence.—Judgment reversed as to the defendant Florence, new trial ordered, with cost to abide the event. The “People ex rel. Realy vs. Leask.—The verdict should be set aside and now trial ordered, costs to abide event, Conroy vs, The Mayor, &c.—Judgment reversed, new trial orderod; costs to abide the event, Conway va. The Mayor, &c.—Jadument reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide the event. Clarkson ve. Mittoacht —Motion denied with $10 costs: The People, &c., ¥s. Deory et al.—Motion granted on payment of costs of District Attorney and Sheriffs tees, Boyd va, Strange. —Judgment affirmed, Gaillard v8 Charlie, —Judgment reversed. MABINE COURT—CHAMBERS, * By Judgo McAdam. O'Donnell ve. Stevle.—The defendant's domicile ot origin was in Connecticut, and no suflicient evidence of change bas been furnished. ‘The reteree’s report will therefore be confirmed upon the authority of 8 Abb., 78; 6 Ib,, 374; 4 Barb,, 504; 16 How., 85; 1 Daly, 551; Waw's R., vol. 1, p. 611; 4 Staniord, 198; 1 Seid., 422; Wend. 43; 19 Th, 11; '2 Rob, 701; 23 Pick., 170; 14 How., U. 8.,'400. Bromell_vs, Roehmer; Amana. Soctety vs. Jones; Lewis vs. Turner; Bell vs. Pitman —Oprvions filed. Pind vs Quirk; Carlisle ya Davis.—Decisions ed, Jones vs, Oliver and Harris Company; Knacker vs, Hardman. —Cvscs settled, *! Doif va. Tulinghast; Willta ris; William vs. King; Williama va, Bradw Connet Mahamed vs, Dale; Horbst vs.’ Vichot; Babbitt va" va. Hi Hard; Brink vs. Fay; Tucker vs, Caro,—Sce indorse- ments on papers. Smith vs, Cohen; Thomson vs, Messenger. —Motions denied. i Rice vs. Boese; Farmer ‘vs, Bancker.—Motions granted. Etsnor ys. Fichtner.—Motion granted without costs, on stipulating not to sue. Stone ys, Hayden.—Judgmeut for $5 damages and $5 costs, re bate National Bank vs, Volkening,—Stay va- cated, Wilson vs. Loeser.—Motion granted, Pingat va. Day. —Security ordered. Hines vs. Dobbins, —Commission ordered, Gilroy vs, Kirwin.—Motiou denied. Doll vs, Floto.—Commission ordered. Polk vs. V heim.—Summons and service set aside. Herbst va. Vichot.—Motion granted. Kepherger vs. Lyding.—Action dismissed, Orr vs, Jobnson.—Motion for judgment granted. Stearns vs, Phillbrook,—Motion granted on terms. Wilson vs. Bean.—The answer must be served on the 6th inst Philip va Jones.—Motion denied without costs, MoManus vs. Lyons.—Prisoner discharged, Carlisic vs. Davie.—Demurrer overrated. Stephens vs. McCaffel.—L. W. Emerson appointed receiver. Benedict va, Green; Cowen vs. Morrissey; Blumen- thal va. Terry; Clarkson va Silman; ‘Smith vs, Roberts. —Motions granted, Pingat vs. Day.—Order staying proce ings, The se orie ane ration Bank vs. Kening.—Order vacating ordgr and staying proceedings. — vs. Davis.—Demurrer overruled and’order entered, Part 3.—Noricy To Tux Bar.—At the request of the members of the Bur and suitors and Jurymen jn at- tendance at this trial term morning, owing vo the incomplete and confused condition of pew court rooms « No, 27 Chambers street, Chief Justice Shea adjourned this part to Monday, June 12, 1876, SUMMARY OF LAW CASES, John Ryan, charged with passing a counterfeit five- dollar bill on tte Hampden National Bank of Massa- chusetts, was on examination found to be an mnocent holder and was discharged. The examination of John Gill, alias Smitn, and Chai lotte Thompson, charged with passing counterfert bills on the Hampden National Bank, of Massachusetis, was adjourned til this morning. Michel Sassi, an Italian, charged with passing a coun- terfeit twenty-dollar Treasury note, was yesterday brought up for examination before Commissioner Betts The witness failed to identify Sassi and he was dis- charged. Last Sunday Justus H. Schwab was arrested for sell- ing lager beer in a Clinton street saloon, and was com- mitted by Justice Morgan. He applied yesterday to Judge Donohue tor a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he had done nothing for which he was liable to ar- Test, Tho application was granted, Julius L. Lambert, an agent of the Motropolitan Lite Insurance Company of New York, arrested on the affidavit of Jacob Grabstaller, of Builalo, Erie county, charging him with collecting moneys and appropriat: ing them to his own use, was taken before Judge Donohue yesterday on a'writ of habeas corpus. Various irregularities in the commitment were pointed out and the case was adjourned to this morning, The suit of Sylvester R. Cobb against Benjamin Wood to recover $2,500, with interest irom 1868, came to a second trial before Judge Sundtord, in the Superior Court, yesterday. The action is for a’ balance due for materials supplied to the Franklin Avonue Distillery, Brooklyn, with which plaintiff alleges Mr. ‘ood was connected as partner with Samuel ©. Bat The de- fence is that Mr. Wood, though owner of the jand, and atone time partner, was not so when the goods were delivered, The trial will be resumed this morning. In the suit of Lorin Ingersoll against the Tontb Na- tional Bank, brought to compel the bank to transfer to the plaintif’s credit some 6v0 shares of the bank's stock, which the bank claims belongs to James H. Ingersoll, his son, a motion was made esterday, be- fore Judge Sedgwick, at Speciul Term of the Superior Court, to postpone the trial of the case until October, and also for a stay of proceodings, on the ground that the bank have not had time to prepare an answer, The Court took the papers. Some of the invalid judges are returning to daty again. Judge Larremore held court yesterday and looks entirely recovercd, Judge Van Vorst opened Court, Sut adjourned Ull Friday, not feeling quite strong enough yet to resume his judicial daties. Chief Jus- tice Monell is slowly convalescing, but it ts not at all likely he will bo able to occupy his seat on the bench On the opening of PRrt 3, Marine Court, No. 27 treet, yesterday, Chief Justice Shea pre- siding, the court room was in sach @ fearful condition with duat, dirt and noise, consequent on the alterations now being made on the floor above and in the adjacent rooms, to which apartments the Marife Court will soon ‘be trai ‘red intact, the members of the Bar present reqnested the Court to stand adjourned to Monday, June 12, when it is expected that every tacility will be aflorded the Court to proceed with the trial of causes, The request of the Bar was acceded to by the Chiel Justice, The Marine Court, Part 2, will be opencd this morning by Juage Sheri jor the trial of causes, in the Genera Term room of Supreme Court, new Court House butiding, and will continue to be held there »} a} ed alterations at No, 27 Chambers street are com- plet COURT OF GENERAL SES8SIONS— PART | Before Recorder Hackett, STEALING A WATCH. Laura Cook was arraigned on a charge of having, with the ald of some person unknown, robbed Alex- er Boissy of a gold watch, valued at $40, and $21 in money, in the basement of No, 127 Chrystie street, by g00d character, was sentenced to the term of two yeah and six months in the State Prison. é CHARGE OF FALSE PRETENCES. James Nagle, of Bos'on, was indic'ed for obtaining Money under false pretences, Mr, Kintzing defended the prisoner at the request of the Court. It appears, from the evidence of Mr. Jewitt, druggist, of No. OL Eighth avenue, that on the 19th of April last Nagle entered hig store iu company with another young map ant ~sked for five cents’ worth of Epsom salts, He te der a five-doliar bill in payment, the wit be: s «/erring that he coapted bin out $4 95 in change, The prisoner engaged him i conversation as to certain romedies when he suddenly stated that the change was $1 short. Mr. Jewitt gave bim another $l, but, thinking be bad been swindled, sent boy to watch thé prisoner and his companion. — He followed them ta other drug store, and, on Fr pees the proprietor wd that the prisoner bad iso purchased five cen! ‘th of Epsom salts there and bad tendered another $5 1n payment. Two two-dal- lar bills and ninety-five cents were given in change, but the prisoner agaln insisted that Le had only received $3 95,” Ho repeated this performance at a third store and was tina'ly arrested, The jary ret &@ verdict of guilty, and the prisoner was remanded for sentence. POLICE COURT NOTES, Mr. Andrew J. Schnieder, of No. 644 Second avenue, went out driving on Sunday with his horse and wagon, worth $210, and at two o’clock yesterday morning brought up in front of a saloon in Sixth avenue, be tween Twenty-eighth and Twenty-ninth streets, While he was inside some once stole his horse and wagon. At four o'clock Officer Ubl, of the Seventeenth precinct, found Hank Williams, alias George Ellis, and Edward O'Keete, in possession of the horse and wagon a: Sec. ond avenue and Fourth street, Both men, who were ng ken, rag in the grocery store of Chi was held tor trial by Justice Datly, at the Wash- ington Place Court yesterday, for receiving stoien foe Ho bought a bill of $12 80 we from eggett & Co., No, 97 Reade street, clerk to put up $230 worth of goods for ising to give him halt the proceeds, The cler! quently became inghtened and told his employers, and Detectives Von Gerichten and La Rue, of the Central Ollice, arrested Engleman as he was crossing the Jer- sey City ferry with the stolen in his wagon, James Shaw was committed in default of $2,000 bull by Justice Bixby at the Kssex Market Court’ for at- tempuiog to pass a forged check for $260 on the Oriental Bank, purporting to have been drawn by Rich- ard Walters & Sons, of No, 27 East Broadway, The prisoner said he was looking fur work, anda man in @ gaioon in Ninth avenue, woo promised him erploy- 1, handed him car fare and told him to get the k cashed. Antone Alaro was held at the Tombs yesterday for attempting to swindle Andrew Kidalgo, of No. 14% Wilhat street, of two Spanish doubloons, value $8 50, which Kidalgo had given him to have changed into cur rency, Alaro pleaded guilty, An examination will be bad this morning in the case of Andre Bressant, charged with stealing $590 gold from Paul Leguinge, ut the Western Hotel, on Friday Jas COURT CALENDARS—THIS DAY. Screw Covnt—Cuamnzrs—Held by Judge Dona hue,—Nos. 4, 5, 20, 20, 38, 39, 40, 53, 110, 126, 160, 161, 167, 169, 174,'177, 181, 132, 190, 206, 232," 283,-234, 240, 250, 253, 260, 261, 26v, 272, 27 291, 293, 295, 296, 207, 298, 209, 300. Surneak Covrt—Gevwnat Txnx.—Adjourned until July 6 for the purpose ot reudering decisions. Screeak CovrT—Sruciat ‘teea—Held by Judge * Lawrence. —Law and fact—Nos. 409, 309, 97, 318, 322, 200, 362, 361, 410, 411, 144, 223, 376,'66, 241, 382, 483, B74, 879, 387, 308, 400; 214, 420, 278, 279. Surrene Covrt—Cmocir—Part 1—Held by Judge Barrott.—Nos, 1721, 1072, 2858, 1599, 1113, 1739, 1473, 1767, 1877, 1781, 1788, 1981, 423, 1023, 1461, 1809, 1051, 1403, 2860; 1039, 130, 252, 1389, 11404, 1828, Part 2 Adjourned wutil Friday, June 9, 1876. ' Part 3—Held by Judge Lurremore,—Nos. 80744, 2489, 1809, 57554, 1811, 947}, 1497, 3019, 755, 2068, 1127, B71, 1045, 181, 413, 419, 1735, 2569, 1071, 691, 513, 10784. SUPERIOR COURT—-GaNERAL TkRM—Held by Judgor Curtis aud Van Vorsi.—Appeals trom orders,—Nos. 1, 3, 6, 9% 10, 11, 1: 14, 16. General calendar, — 8) 10, 12, 14, 16, 29. Surenoe 'CovrtT—Srkciat Term—Held by. Judge Sedgwick. —Issues of fact.—Nos. 22, 23, 31, 38, 46, Surxrion Couxt—Triat Tsra—Part 1—Hold Judge Suntord.—Nos, 2701, 1113, 1074, 906, 2027, 1111 1135, 1072, 1112, 1082, 1080, 1136, 737, 1093, 1042. Pai 2—Held “by Judge Speir.—Nos. ' 1673, 712, 1189, 748, 2152, 2182, 2214, 020, 618, 988, 1006, 1361, 971, 954, 858. Commo PLeAS—GeNeuaL Tsxm.—Adjourned until June 26 for the purpose ol rendering decisions. Common PLuas—Kquity Txru—Held by Judge Van Hoesen. —Nos. 28, 4, 27. Common Piwas—rKiaL Tsax—Part 1—Hela by Judge Robingen.—Nos, 1900, 1680, 369%, 1164, 706, 2281, 2127, 2185, 95434, 2061, 1211,’ 2147, 2148, 2153," 2154, 144, 1603,"'1658, 1854, 2234, 1038, 1397, 2337, 46135, 1618, 1871," 696, "1662, "2103, ' 1826,” 2447, 1097, 2428, 1434, 1395, 1190 Part 2—Held by Judge Van Brunt.—Noa 2398, 2441, 1945, 1940, 1975, 1845. New— 2452, 2458, 2454, 2455, 2407, 2459 to 2500 inclusive Part 3—Held by Judgo J. ¥. Daly.—Noa, 2004, 1905, 1996, 1902, 1851, 2501 to 2515 inctusive. MARINE VoveT—TntaL Taru—Part 1—Held by Judge Alker.—Nos. 3180, 4180, 446, 7784, 7726, 746, 7714 8871, ¥~4, 4805, 4286, 4245, 4175, 4168, 4102 Part 2— Held by Judge Sheridan.—Nos. 2013, 4111, 4001, 4125, 3749, 4333, 4283, 4094, 7730, 7574, 7621, 4104, 4116, 4505, 2234. Part 3—Adjourned until Monday, June 12, 1876 COURT OF GENERAL SEssoNs—Part 1—iteld by Re corder Hackett.—The People va. Peter Clark, robbery} same va Jobo Garry, burglary; Same vs Williats Clary and Wilham J,’ Youmey, burglary; Same va Charles Davis, burglary; 8: va, William Hamnous, grand larceny; Same vs. William Buck, grand larceny} Same va Michael T, Carroll, grand larceny; Same va Otto A. Hupleld, receiving stolen goods; Same vs. Thomas Smith,’ pevt larceny; Same vs, Andrew Cassidy, petit. larceny; Same vs. Catharine Slattery and Mary Keily, petit larceny; Same vs. Hannah Connors, peut jurceny; Samo vs, John Smith and William Smith, burglars’ tools; Part 2—Held by Judge Gildersieove.—The People va James Flanigan, robbery; Same ys, Alexander Thue- neut, robbery; Same ys George Thorn, telonious as- sault and. battery; Same ys. William Hollenbeck, felonious assault and battery; Same va, Brumke G. jame ys, Franklin Judson, burglary} Dougherty, burglary; ‘Same vs. Joseph Cross, burglary; Same vs Timothy Coffey, burgiary; Same vs. Alice Thompson, barglary; Sai va Wilham Thompson, burglary; Same vs. Esth Weeks, burglary; Same vs Thomas Smith et al, receiving stolen goods; Same vs. Anna Jackson, petil larceny; Same vs. William Keliy, petit larceny; Same vs. Charles Harding and William Moran, petit lareeny, coURT OF APPEALS, Aunaxy, June 5, 1876, No, 10034. Knoeppsel va. Kings Coanty Insurance Company.—Submitted. 5 No, 216. Brown vs. The Mayor, &c., of New York.— Argued by James C. Carter for appollant- and Thomas ‘Alison for respondent. No, 443g. Ripon va. Merchants’ Life Insurance Com. pany.—Argued by C. L, Sprague for appellant; subd mitted for r dent. No, 228 Harnett vs Garvey.—Argued by F. G@. Smedley for appellant and E. W. Rankin for respondent. No, 102. Milliman vs. N. Y. C. and@..2. K.—Sub- mitted. No. 37. Brandan vs. Brandan.—Argued by James B. , Olney and RK. W, Watson for appeliants and R. H. King for respondent, CALENDAR FOR TUESDAY. Nos, 209, 223, 4344, 200, 186, 103, 229, 54, THE CHICAGO MAYORALTY CASE, : Cutcaco, TIL, June 5, 1876. In the Circait Court this morning five judges, sitting in bane, gave diverse opinions in the Mayoralty cage of Colvin vs. Hoyne, The majority—Judges McAlister, Willams and Rogers—decide that since the City Coun. cil neglected to call an election for Mayor at the time when Mr, Colvin's time expired, and sineo such a call is necessary to secure a valid election, that the votes recently cast for Mr. Hoyne are nugatory, and that Mr. Colvin hoids his office unul an election is duly cal'ed ‘by the Council. Judges Farwell and Booth read dis- senting opinions, in effect that the failure of the Coun- cil to perform its duty does not invalidate the votes cast, because the law 18 mandatory, and an election may legally be held, notwithstanding such dereliction on the part of the Council. THE HACK ORDINANCES. A few days ago the Heratp published an ordinance, now awaiting action by the Board of Aldermen, rela. tive to the lighting of coaches both public and private. An officer of the Hack Owners’ Association calls the attention of the Hxraip to another ordinance intro. duced by Alderman Pinckney, in March last, fixing the rates of fares between the Grand Central depot aud the various ferries, 1t Is charged that this ordinance was soemingly introdaced in the interest of the New York Tran: tion Company, and that the tariff is so high that the Hack Owners’ Association entered a protest, Mr. Pinckney, who introduced the proposed ordinance, asserts that he offered it of his own volition, wih the single object of protecting the passengers from extor- tion by capbies, and that the prices fixed by his ordi- hance are lower than the present tariff! in force in the city, Alderman Seery, of the Law Commitiee, to which the proposed ordinance was roferred, reports that there is NO probability Of ts ever being reported back for the ; action of the Board. the panel process, on April 22. Tho prisoner was founa guilty sad sentenced to two years and six months in the State Prison, COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS— PART Il. Before Judge Gildersleeve, PLEADED GUILTY OF FORGING, This court was opened yesterday inthe room for- merly ocem@pied by Part 3 of the Mari Several prisoners were arraignod for trial, Assistant District Attorney Bell prosecuting on behalf of the people, John H. Meyer, of No, 84 Amity street, for- merly clerk in the employ of Henry I. ele, No, 108 ‘Thompson street, pleaded guilty to the forging of his employer's name on a number of checks for smail amounts § The prisoner, why bad previously borne a POLICE OUTRAGES, To Tax Eprron ov tie Hreato:— ‘The recent outrages and brutal conduct of the police foree in this city calls tor prompt action on tlie part of the Commissioners. Only a stort time since I happened to witness a policeman clubbing aman and taking many falls which seemed to tickle his biue-couted ch. Tremonstrated and told him bie to the helpless man, I have never my legs betore, aa I jumped away ‘oid A weil directed shot of the locust at eranium, he shouting at me in poles laueo, thas it Tintertered he would “pull we Ke Pot wishing to be locked up im a damp cell, with and thieves, I departed from the scene, A TAXVAYER AND CITIZEN,