Common Pleas.
D-fu MI
{"newspaper_name": "The New York herald.", "edition": "01", "page": "p1", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 1940, "word_count": 346, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9811000227928162], "ccnet_perplexity": [1869.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



FEB az-Simeon Rogers Us John Shephard-This was
action of replevin OF
tces of household turni which had been seized
the 2sh day Of May last by def ndant 1t appeared in
evidence that defendant let the premises situate at SO
Houston street, to person of the OF Simeon Hulse,
son in-law of the plaintiff At his death arrears
were due, and the property levied pom by defend
ant and Sold The plaintiff claims this property be.
longing to himself he having previously removed from
premises he occupied in Christie street. and therefore,
he defendant had rgh to dstran upon it, The de.
fendant in his opening contended that the property for
merly belonged to the deceased and his wife but
hefre he could adduce testimony to support his aega
ions plaintiff moved for verdict in his Che paint's)
favor on the round 1st hatdefepdant could not dist
against the property cts Of dead against
his heirs representative they of
defendant; and IDLY that the writ under which the pro-
perty was levied upon, wrong III point OF FORM 1t
did not specify for what part OF the the goods
10 be disraned for Defendant agreed take
verdict f,r the defendant subject to the opinion Of the
Court to which plaintiff would not consen he however,
agreed to take verdict for plaintiff the terms.
sumed One of he witnesses for the defence that
she had frequently heard Mrs. Rogers and Mrs Halse
say that the property dsraned belonged to the laer
ard it was further tesf, that she used them SUCH
II was therefore conended by defendant that he had
right to levy upon them for his Verdict for de-
fendant and the value Of the perty $780, Dbbe for
psintiR, L. r. Tomlnson, tor defendant


II Wallis Stephen r. Piet.-This action
brought check for $20O dated in December le4l
II appeared that note made by defendant q party
named BURNETT who is a receiver in Chancery by whom
It was cashed The defence put in that defendant
never received any oil the money Verdict this forenoon