The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-07
sURRoGATE's COURT.
rHE sHEpurRp GUARDIAN CAsE.


This case. which has been before Surrogate
Hutchngs since 1873, when Samuel G. shepherd,
a shipping merchant, died from insanity. leaving
an estate, ana appointing his housekeeper Irs.
Dammeren, guardian, was on hearing yesterday.
some time ago the guardianship was set ASIDE on
the petition of the cnllo's aunt Miss Walker, who
set up the plea that Mrs. DamuIere was insane.
The Court on a nearing appointed Mss Walker
guardian. the Court, however, has allowed tue
case TO be reopened on the petition OIL ISIS wal
keF, VINO VANS MIS-. Dainns W lenoseu as
guardian on the ground that MI shepherds IN
sanity, as well as Mrs. Dammerell's mental condi-
uon, rende ed the latter unht Tor the dnLes OF
guaTulan. Miss walker yesterday testified that
IN Decemoer, 1870, she received letter from Mr..
shepherd. stating ma ms business was rdtned
owing TO the CUBAN difficulties. In 1871 Sdepherd
told ner That az the time ne hau written the
aDove letter ne was insane, ana t.ere was no
truth In 1t; that his business was all right. Wit
ness described her el0rts 10 secure some OF ner
books aud the contents OF ner trunks IN Shep-
herds house and declared that he reused 20 per-
NIT ner to take them away or examine them,
except IN his presence. ne case was Adjourned
until TUESDAY OF next week.
THE WILL or SAMUEL WARD, JR.
The Surrogate mas granted the motion or coun-
sci Tor Samuel Ward, tue father Of the testator, Tor
a commission 10 examine the subscribing VIII
nesses, whose testimony was not returned, on the
commission Issued on application Of the propo-
nents. samuel Ward, the father OF the deceased,
claims that Inc testimony OF these witnesses would
present different aspect than Is shown by the
mOtner 81 the testator, no secures be whole es-
tate ner grandson. Her counsel clam ha the
execution OF the will was sufficiently proved. sur.
ro-ate HltcnlnRs grants q ~ ior d reasonable
time until the return OF tie commission. wnica ne
has directed.
RENEWING MOTIONS WITHOUT LEAVE
motion was recently made before Judge Roo
inson, at special Term 81 the court Of Common
Pleas, on benall OF Charles Golden 10 be relieved
nom paying he bond given BY MN lor the ap-
pearance oi Catnarine {. Summar ior trial. The
motion was refused bY Judge Robinson, and the
following brief opinion, written in connection
with the matter, is interesting showing up
more particularly some nice points or practice
developed In the case ana the JUDGES view OF the
legal morale Of renewing applications without
leave.
tbs application for the discharge OF Judgment
entered upon forfeited reCOgu1Zance has been
before denied ana IS renewed without leave. On
the previous consideration OF the case ~ Was
made 70 appear taat the accused, py ne suDter-
Iuge OF lallng TO appear when the case was
called ana rue recognizance forfeited aud thus
avoiding trial, was enrolled through
surrender a subsequent OCCASION when the
man wi ness against mr. was absent IN Europe
lesson VI q Minor OnenCs and thereby escape
trial Tor the principal charge agalnsi hei. Inc
practice 81 renewing Tucn Applications without
exp ess leave caunot, IN my Judgment, be TOO
application / should unhsslatlngy give my
opinion mat there not good cause for grant
ing N, bur. IN the contrary thas tile deut ad-
ludgeu due 10 ne people should 30 INTO the buoic
expenses 81 such pr secuuOns. The claim maze,
10 the eQultaole consideration OF the Court. rs
predlca e. upon too corrupt case % De entitled
70 favorable regard. MOaon denied.