Case ID: nys_7/html/0896-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Barnard, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Canda et al. v. Robbins.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    December 10, 1889.)
    Attachment—Grounds—Non-Residence.
    An attachment on the ground of defendant’s non-residence will not be set aside, where it appears that he lives with his wife in New Jersey, which he stated was his place of residence; that he is registered and votes in that state; that he is assessed for personalty and has his business letters sent there; and that he is neither registered as a voter nor assessed for personalty in this state.
    Appeal from special term, Kings county.
    Action by John M. Canda and John P. Kane against Thomas H. Bobbins. Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion to vacate and set aside the warrant of attachment against his property, obtained on the allegation that defendant was a non-resident of the state.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
    
      Brandt &' Robbins, for appellant. J. W. Shepard, for respondents.
   Barnard, P. J.

The fact of non-residence is fully established by the paper. The defendant owns a house, with the furniture, in Brooklyn. William A. Bobbins, his son, resided in it. The defendant is a brick-maker, residing in Keyport, H. J. The proof of this is made up by a variety of circumstances. He lives with his wife in a house upon the brick-yard premises. He is proven to have stated that his place of residence was in Hew Jersey. He is not assessed for personal property in Brooklyn. He is not registered as a voter there. He is registered as a voter in Hew Jersey, and voted there in Hovember, 1888. He is assessed for personal taxes in Hew Jersey. He has his business letters sent to Hew Jersey. The point taken that the affidavit made by the voting clerk, as to defendant’s voting in Hew Jersey, is not authenticated by a certificate, as required for record, is not controlling. There is proof that defendant’s name is on the poll-list of the voters who voted at the Hovember election, and the fact is not denied by defendant. The order should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.