{"character_count": 2194, "word_count": 376, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9811000227928162], "ccnet_perplexity": [1116.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



Der e.-This was action commenced by Phineas I.
Barnum of the NJ Iseum, against Frederick Randall, the
giant. ALEXANDER WATSON and WIN. NJ. Price, Esqs,
appeared Tor the defendant, and Mr. NLEs for plaintiff
The action brought to prohibit the defendant from
exhibiting himself and wife al any other place than that
person The plaintiff exhibited contract made between
him and defendant In which the latter agrees to exhibit
himself and wife in this country for the term OF eight
months for the benefit of plaintiff, for the sum OF $780,
from which was to be deducted their passage out and
other expenses and the defendant to supply himself
and wife with board and clothing for the term They
rived here Aprl last AMI la Jelly the agent OF plaintiff
made application to the defendant to enter into new
contract to exhibit elsewhere, and divide the
proceeds between plaintiff and defendant Pending this
had been made by the defendant, he was arrested
at the suit Of the plaintiff, and with his wife
lodged in Eldridge street prison. writ OF ne eTen
was served upon him, which was subsequently dis
charged The motion was to dissolve the Injunction
and Mr. PRIcr in support cited the case OF Hamilton W
Dinneford I'd Edwards Chancery reports In which is
held that contracts for personal service could not be
enforced In this He also contended that the
remedy OF plant at the usual suit at law and even
the defendant insolvent was no reason why the
this the injunction served prematurely as the
defendant arrested while Engaged at the Museum
and whatever view he taken Of the departure OF de
fendant SINCE his exhibiting Philadelphia had no
bearing upon the nothing could be introduced ex
cep antecedent TO the injunction The counsel for
plaintiff denied this position, and cont ndcd that the in
sovency oil defendant left the proceedings before this
Court the snly remedy He argued further that an
deliver certain number OF bales OF cotton
fulfilled could be brought into this court to compel
could redress be had to the plaintiff The Chancellor
dissolved the that the cases referred to
by MIR Price, were sufficient to determine his decision.
motion incidental TO this case will be decided to-day