The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-26
DECISIONS.
MARINE CoURT-CHAMBERs.

BY Judge Joachmsen.
Gabel vs.. Lirpmai: Breue Ellis; Mullay vs..
Costing; Hyde VS.. BE rdeL-See memoranda.
1readweil vs. hoffman; Adams VS.. Delan (;
Freund W.. Gaeitz: Brandt vs. Russell; Slevn Va.
Connors; Damseaux W. Clark.-Orders to advance
causes signed ana entered.
Strauss vs. Kaynor: sephton VS.. schlegel !;
Sherldan VS.. Schlegel; Downing VS.. Racey; Cush-
Ing vs. wilcox; Compton vs.. Erie Railway COM
pany Hahlgan VS. Chapin; Van Claim VI. Miller !:
Rogers vs.. The French Manufacturing Company {:
Brandon vs.. Walsh; Murnhy vs.. Lothian; Hanning
Duden VS.. neutrality-suspicious. granted ana orders
signed.
SUPREME coURT-CuANIBEIs.
By Judge Davis.
Robertson VS.. Secombe.-rne complaint IN tbs
case appears on It's lace 20 be properly verified;
bot the defendant produces certificates OF The
the person VINO subscribes the Jurat rs not IA au-
thorzed notary public. The certificates overcoms
the presumption ARISING from the assumption OF
onlclai power by the subscription to the Jurat IN
this particular case; Dut in addition II appears
that on the same day he took a yerihca1on OF the
comp'aint IN the other case as notary OF the DIS
tTicC OF Columbia. lne motion must be denied,
win $40 COSTS and with leave to renew the appll-
cation payment OF costs, on other papers show
ing the OficIal ulhorl'y of TIE ALLEGED no airy.
ROBERTSON vs. Secomoe-IDe com .ialnt An tnis
case Is not properly verified. Inc unVerheo an
therefore properly served. 10 is urged
mat the second section OF the sta ute chapter
1876. page 2fl, Laws OF 1869, Goes not apply, be-
cause the affdavlt IS not intended 10 be read IN
evidence in Judicial proceeding think tlis 10
q mistake. The aflidavit IS offered here On ms
motion TO show that the complaint was duly veri-
ned. There other evidence. 10 read II,
therefore, lor sncn purpose requires the certih-
cate prescribed by statute. Apparently here IS
some hing in the verifcatlon. Thomas X. Ellis
worth rs The notary before Whom The verlhcaiiOn
puFpOrts to be made In the District OF Columbia
That same person in the other suit in which the
motion was made simultaneously with TINS, takes
and signs the verihcatlOn as notary pubic oil the
city and county o. New YORK.. he cannot be q
resident ana notary az both places. Which is cor
rect2 The moLion Is DENIED, with $40 costs OF op-
posing.
BY Judge Dorohue.
Hack VS.. Sklddy, Darling vs. Brewster--Mo
tlCDs denied.
Bensusan va Archer-Den,ed.
Williams vs.. Lomelino.-Moton granted,
Kennedy vs.. kennedy.-Granted.
Newourg Lager Beer Brewery vs.. WILKINS
Memorandum.
Clarke w. Donaldson-Reference ordered.
Croweli VS.. Gulon.-Order correct
In the matter OF DlckIe.-A reference must oe
taken.
Riddle vs.. Observation-Disclosures as TO defendant
granted, A V. stout appointed receiver anu III
junction as to Latnrop, Herman and stout dis
missed.
By Judge Barrett
In the matter OF SossOn.-lhere must be the
usual oond or consent snoud cover the proposed
amount. II such consent cannot be Obta ned
the usual bond given there must be reference.
Pv Judge Daniels.
Kent We. Quicksilver Mining Company and
others-Opinion.
SUPREME COURT-SPECIAL TERM
BY Judge Van Worst.
Woodbridge vs. The Mayor, &C.; Vog,er vs.
World Mutual Insurance Company.-Jcdgment
for plaintiffs on demurrcrs. See opinions
SUPERIOR CoURT-sPECIAL TERN.
By Judge Sedgwick.
Ward vs. The Mayor, &c.-Demurrer sustained.
Townshend VS.. MalOy ct al.-Demurrer sus-
tanned with leave to amend on payment or costs.
Jones vs. the Mayor, &c.-Motton for injunction
denied.