New-York tribune., 1870-09-30
SUPREME couRT-GESER,L TERM.

Before Ingraham, y. d., and CdrdOro and Bar
nard j. J-TRe People Of the STATE or Neo YORK agt me
Sppeai from an order made ~ jnigo Barra at Special
Term making on extra allowance TO tho defendant OF
dretng the removal OF the railroad, bulkead, &c Of
the defendants in the Boyot New-Yor on the westerly
one mile from the NewJersey sl2Ic, ON the ground that
they bad been constructed within the Jnrisd gnon Of
1,udant demurred to the complaint, and Judg-
ment was given for the defendant, but on APP
neal 90 tie General Term that Judgment was
reversed whereupon answer put In, and the Issue
was tried at the Special Term Inc pmns cLtlh tldt
ia 0nv 10 be made when it Is both difficult and extraor-
dinary and they claim that the allowance s e1ofDahl'
dpmnItv The respoEdents contend that the amount OF
the allowance is not beyond. but on the contrary Is
nrcyi for such case aud IL the allowance is to be
regarded only for the services rendered IN the s
counsel fees therein An order Was made reversing tno
order OF Judge Barnard, with leave 10 the ucIyud ~
renew his motion on niid9yt or tIny M NJ d
Henri d. S0rer, respondent, agt Jennie Cogs~eit op-
against the plaintiff for breach OF promise TIc1 Ry con
sent was submitted TO G. u. ScdgNck a. sole hrbrator
m sh0nli nav 10 the defendant $500 aud transfer GER
tain personal property. In November 1862 Miss Cogs
rrenoc Count IN syracuse 10 courn and obtain judg-
nent upon TIE award. Subsequently an action was Com;
ffat it had been improperly Made. The plantli
obtained chamber order on on the h'n s,og 0I
MAY, 1870, FOR the ucltnuhhJ W
cause why tine defendant should not be
enjoined from proceeding 10 enforce and execute the
Judgment and execution above mentioned with n tem-
porary stay OF proceeding The order heard ON tue
8th OF june before Justice barnard when counsel ioT
defendant moved 20 dismiss The complaint when was
ordered. The appellant nOw appeals, ana contends thdt
tbe order was improperly made T. authorize On niunc-
ton there should not only be clear rendition OF the
Plaintiffs rights, but the rights themselves should DO
certain, and capable OF being clearly aScertahe Whlcn
the appellants claim have not been done; and that II
the Court has the power make the order In this II
should refuse to exercise that power because the plaintiff
has an ADEQUATE remedy ia the original action Tie re-
spondont claims tlt the prepoudeance ot evidence on
the motion was I'm favor Of the responder ana mat
trial of the s9me merits in CCgswell agt Stoycr,
which might have been had there, but the Issue raised
by the Ttadugs now tried would be had u this action
James Fist IT,, Respondent agt. The Aib1hD and Shs-
OifChanHd RdiTOud CONPd0y JdUeS IT, HdWS3g, - az
This A. m qupel from an order granted by Judge Bar
uard denying the motion OF the appellants for an order
striking ont the supplemental complaint in this action,
and vacating the order parte allowing SAID supple
mental complaint. After hearing the argument OF coa
sell tie Count affirmed the decision Of Judge Barnard,
stating that the supplemental complaint contained many
points uOrtanug u the There UCro other points,
however, which did not apperian to the Case ana uie
motion should have been tO strike out portion, anu hOt
tle entire complaint.