The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-04-18


su,borzed and directed after the lapse Of thirty days
from the filing Of such report in his Office, 70 draw his
warrant uTon lne treasurer ior Ine payment OF sucn sum
:" WV '~"
THE ANTLRENT DECISION.
from the ALBANY Arqus April 1877
The antirent cases, they have been called do
cded asaps the tenants and in favor of the position that
in the case of neyretus, ,ease which has een
the relation Of landlord and tenant exists between the
,,r, ,r.r.or and tho ...ones or tho ea.a on that tho
former can maintain an action against the latter for the
have been unanimous
The Schuyler county case has been decided In favor
the validity and consttutonay Of the couny-Hve Of the
Judges in This decision and three Judges Sell
case upon which The question arose. as folIows:-
The case BY which this question was brought before
The court was that q one Rsmsey who was convicted IL
Win intent IN I'm vhch was committed in The toen Of
Catherine. now psrt Of SCHUYLER county He pleaded
This on beinp bnt the nes Was overruled on
he ororrd st there vac no sncb countv as the conntu
NJ schuvier ard Tho, the ovn or Cstherne VAS within
the county or chemuna The same question WAS raised
h n' xnu Uuuy W. ,ns IT. ,n ,,I o f .Ss ssa dscIou
n.Ss in tba nvsr snd rermnsr and the irdcment vss
afflrmea bv The supreme Court in the Sixt6 district
vse sent.ncad n the State prison for two
T csse as hsn hv writ of error 10 ths Court oc
hch aAorms The Observation-Disclosures of ScbnvIsr
ennn,u md nusshes the ;nd; tynent - -'o'
----,.
In OOonA Or AT EAi*o' M hiH 10, Aooo'
Ballard yB Ballard.-IotiOn TO dismiss appeal denied
~. 80 go.
"sA ~A0 ~
Argument OF NO. Z4o conciudeo'
No. GA submitted.
ecsors of prev;ous term rendered and Curt ad;ourn
"a ,.;,h~n, d.v = '-
Gu ~"ious uAy'
DECISIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MARCH
TERM
,.as ..s-... - n.
'wog'nen's sn "eo-Anuie"s s'' Du'~"' Nounusoufy
va Purdy: ARawam Bank VI. sreever. with per cen!
damaQee WipChell va. Hicks Tanner Norris vs. Hoyt
r,,,,s vi. Rochsster and svracuse Railroad C,rnanv
phsirs vs Chs mnng Canal Rank vth nor cent ~
parfsr vn p.era 6twss va hliave lake (lnsaro ana
Bono: Beiden VS. Rev Pendleon vs. Empire stone Dress.
ing Company, with 10 pr cent damages; Trimbe An
s wi ~n & AZ pI 49, p A1Son W. "a
Rairoad Company with 10 per cent damages Kobbe VS.
Storm with 10 per cent damaees Bank Of Rome va WI
laee OF Rome Van Rens eelaer VS. HAYES: the eame va
Ball. Sph; Cbrstie ct al vs. De Ffeest Savage
receiver, vs Medbury Smith vs. New York ana Harlem
RAILROAD Company; White Hackett; Beach w. Hunger
ford, with 10 per damages; CAdy W. Allen;
Codd We. Raihbone, with per cent damsges:
Thomas vs. Dickinson; Brewster vs. Leys with 10 per
cent damagts and City Of Sy Iacuse Mech Slower;
Patchen Bank Greene, with per cent damages Gard
ner VS. NcEwen; Oliver Lees Bank VS.. wAbrcge; same
fslcot With 10 per cent damages; Meserau Pear
sal Wilks Peoples Fire IpouT TAnCe Company, with 7
per damages, Barnes vs. johnson; Hunt Bennett
with 10 per cent damaees Tottsbeger VS.. per
damages Horton w. MorpaD with 10 per cent damages;
Bar per The Poughkeepsie Mutual Fire Insurance Com
papy udson w. Gray latter 10 per cent damagee Cook
VS.. Esleek.
abide tvenBar against Caxton, Morris against
Mteit against Ssckett, Williams against Fitch, Denny
against smh, Hall against Naylor, Bangs against Duck