The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-07-07
DECISIONS.
SUPREME coURT-cHAMBEls.
BY Judge DAVIS.

BY Judge DAVIS.
Allen vs.. KoObie.-l hInk the defendant is en-
tited 10 his taxable costs. The referee should
properly have disposed OF that question, Uut the
peculiar order 81 reference seems 10 Gave re-
service 1t Tor the G urr As 70 the additional al
lOWance, ! am D epsFed 10 grant some amount
bur a M not able 70 AK upon proper basis rom
the % pers before me. The motion may sand
over for the certificate OF the referee stating WhaS
srm or what amount Of claims were IN contrc-
versy be ore him, and may be reheard on such
certificate and the pfesent papers and sucl other
papers as either party may produce.
DOy.e rs. Tie B0ari OF ASsessOrs.-fhere seems
60 be some mistake about these papers. Counsel
FOR appIcant Is requested to see Judge Dsvis 70
make explanation.
Inger V. Asten, 6c.-rhe motion seems 10 be
premature. IL should be denied without pref
rdice 10 rs renewal hei ealter u Tue assessors re-
1use 10 act ~ tie premises after receiving the as
sessment, &c, rom he proper authority.
HcalY ". Heay,- Tne affidayit OF defendant
does rot denY IN adnlt. ~ charged ~ PAINFUL
nor she conGuet on ma part detaIed IN ire Witn-
IN AFFIDAVIT. lie charges p!3Dt!n with adultery,
which charge she denies On cain. am satisfied
that the defendant has BUS little property and
small income. The case IS one tnat requires an
order Tor some allowance. An order may be en-.
tered requiring the payment wlthn twenty days
OF $50 20 painti1'5 attorneys Tor expenses
OF prosecuting the suis ana the weekly sum OF no
for the support Of tue plainuG anu ner children,
10 be paid on saturday CT each week at the once
OF plainftn's attorney win leave to make iurtber
applcgtion ior expenses.
fone ". Board OF Assessors. 1t is questionable
whether this application is not premature. But
as the andavits in opposition pus In issue several
Of the allegations Of the REALTORS petition IL IS at
most only proper tAat an alternative nandamus
irsmei Tor trial upon questions OF TACT or law.
Orce. CT that alternative maBdamus Issue without
Breiudcs 10 the right OF respondents 10 insist by
answer that the proceedings are Irsmstureiy
taken.
Deertnr We. Lypch-1he papers show that there
was no ISSUE Of law in the case. The pstntln was
taxed 81 for costs aitcr notcc or trial, $50 for
triai Of issue OF fact aad so Tor trial OF OF
law. There was 10 possible excuse for putting
these items INTO TIE iii Of COSTS There should
DC 46J stricken cut u the Judgment Or
costs. A mistake seealA 10 have been made
IN computing interest. II so the refr
axe shOuia be deducted. The referee 10 sell
NAV be directed 90 make a new Compilation, and
a. condition, on notice Of two days to eendant's
attorney the correct sum anu any excess must be
deducted from the judgment. The sale 70 Je
postponed TIL this DC iOne. On the general mer-
fs the motion should be denied the statements OF
the delencant Lynch are July met and disposed
Of Motion granted so lar as necessary TO The
corrections ABOVE Indicated, but Denied IN otner
respects neit her parry 10 have costs Of motion.
Cammeysr vs.. Clark.-MotlOa granted, without
costs.
In the matter OF MurTay.-It seems 10 me, Gu
authority that the wife MAY De examined in these
proceedings see Laws 1881 chapter sS7; IL
ABBOTT 40, Lockwood vs.. WorsteIL
by Judge Brady.
Hooker vs. MartIu.-Ihe difference IN value
plsceo upon the property 10 he sold Is very great,
and it ~ diffiGult draw the line Win precision
between them. IL seems 10 me, ana sucL 10 J
best Judgment that II $500 sc curty be given ~
ence. 1nis sum is adopted on tue Supposition
that the appeals Will be prosecuted withru at decay
otherwise The pRlntin MAJ Apply Tor iurtner sc
curly n so ADVISED.
discharged; but | tnlnk, under all the circum
stances the defendant should stipu!ate not to sue
The case h not ronz enough 70 warrant the eX
tension OF the nrncess saa vst -ot ueak enough