The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-04
SUPREME COUaT-CianSeaS.
Disseminating suits by the state Attorney
Gcnerai.

Disseminating suits by the state Attorney
General.
Before judge CardOzo.
The People VS.. Tue Tobacco Manufacturing CON-
pany-In THIS case q molon, II will lie remembered.
was made 10 vacate tue dlscontinudnce Of tho SUIT
Is directed by Mr.. Uhampldin, state Attorney Gen.
eral. The Juage yesterday denied the motion, rel-
derIng tue iolowiiig Opnon:-Ihe peupe, III their
sovereign capacity, are lie only ones wnO eau Clam
the iOreiLIe oi the cllarter oi COrpuratOn. hat
is too well settled 10 need autnorlt,. they may
claim Inc forfeiture or waive II. ana they may waive
At tinic ut anothcr either before al uuy
stage vi a proceeding 10 enforce IL. That beng
clearly their Attorney Geuera, IN lie Of
acting a. the rep esentat,ve OF the people,
may OF course act Tor them and exer.
else complere control oil the question now
far the forfeiture shat Ue Insisted upUn, and when
ne thinks tnai the puOc lntorests require tnat he
Should prosecute 1t no 1urtner, and make no Claim
discontinue the SUIT aud end the same This view
renders It unnecessary to examine the other polnts
raised on The argument The motion Is denied.
One OF the Erie Rmil~vay uiIs Como 10 tho
Surface Again.
Thompson The Ere Railway Company.-A
motion made. Will be recOected IN tiIis case,
chs being Of the preferred stockholders suits,
to compel the defendants 10 produce before tine
tSaI the eiananss had ofierea to furnish from their
books Inc lIoriultion sought Tor. The Judge ue-
cided that II they comply wlh this oer no lurther
discovery can be had, aild directed an order &C
C0rulngly.
Decisions.
Wright va. Stewart OF aL-The proposed amend.
ments " case ail0wed and case anu amendments
Settled.
Munsel Vs. spratt ct al.-MotIon granted.
MInchell vs.. NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. Tor coun.
bay vs.. Day.-Allowance OF SIS TO each OF the de.
fcndani's attorneys VINO made Application.
Weeks vs. nan.-Mot,un 10 continue Injunction
denied temporary order vacated.
smith W.. Observation-Disclosures opened upon pay
BY Judge Barrett.
Waldbelmer vs.. Self OIL al.-ielerence ordered to
compute DC
Parker vs.. Hutchings ct al.-Motion for reference
= tened, wLnout costs.
Muller CT al. VS.. sutton ct al--Moton granted.
Montgomery vs. LevIen.-Salne.
Brown vs. McCaUe. -Aemol anuum for counsel.
Samter vs. Jacops et al-Peadlngs noted.
Churchill Vs. Blondell ct al.-kelerence ordered to
bake proof and compute, &C.
Coleman W. HunL-ihe adjournmenis from Octo.
Der IL To December 10, le7i are wanting.
Stevens ct al. vs.. Lyons.-Mouon granted Tor
pro0I OF service he ng supplied.
Wander bergh ct al vs. Jones Ell AL The motion
vhou,d nave Ueen made IN the usual way. IL must
pc properly made ior the thlrd Monday at tweve
O'Clock Al, anu placed on the calendar
III The matier vi Mr.. Huber wrlts Oh haoeas corpus
Ind certlorari allowed.
Perkins ct al vs.. " hte.--Moton granted.
Allen Vs. BAKER. ct al-MoioD DENIED.
Altmayer vs. Observation-Disclosures OF $50 granted.
Niles Vs. Cronk.-Mouon granted.
Reil vs.. Lawrence Ell al same.
Larpin vs.. Wright Motion denied without pref.
ndlce 10 renewal upon urtner papers.
Se9eil Vs. Memphis ana 81. LOUIS Railroad Com
yany. referred To hon. josiah Sutherland 10 near
ma deter mine.
Graham Ct al. vs.. stewart--Mot,on granted only
~ 10 oomm.ss and without COSTS. MOTION Tor
becunty for costs denied. Stay granted ivr six
weeks alter the Issuing OF the COMMISSION.
lawson w. Bondy eleven casesl-0fders
Griscom VS.. Leonard.-Upop proof OF service being
bupped let an attachment, issue unless drieDuaDJ
delivers I'M the property To the receiver WITHIN
three days after the service OF this ordeT upon him.
Biiort OF al. VS.. Lambeth MOTION granted.