The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-10-06
COURT OF APPEALS.
ALBANY, oct 5, 1s7

DECISIONS.
Tachman VS. Brown.-Motion denied, with SO costs.
Dart Village Of Hamburg-Moton granted, with
Of appeal up time Of motion, and $40 costs OF
motion.
Train VS. Holland Purchase Insurance Company
White VS.. Mealis vernal acknowledgements rc-
versed and trial granted, costs to abide events.
Disbrow VS. Mills; Collins VS.. Burns McDevtt vs.
North Second Street Railroad Company; Pru VS.. Nut
ual Protection Associations Leslie VS. Knckerbocker
Insurance Company; Lathrop VS.. Dunlop Costello vs.
The Mayor Judgment affirmed with costs
Devlin The Mayor-So much OF the judgment OF
the Court below the Judgment of the ref
affirmed and the residue of the Judgment re-
versed and trial granted, costs to abide events
People Shaw Judgment affirmed.
Gilman VI. Gilman; same VS.. same.-Judgment
affirmed with costs Of both parties to be paid out of
the estate.
In the matter OF Pooe-order affirmed with costs
People ys Conan; People rel, Town of Frid VS.
Hopkins. Appeal dismissed with costs
Van Vechten VS.. Keator-Judgment OF Supreme Court
and decree OF Surrogate affirmed with costs:
Rodnegos East River Savings Instituton.-Re-
argument ordered
Ayams VS.. Woole.-Motion to dismiss appeal H.
Ballard for motion; Samuel Hand opposed The Court
Grouse vs. REHABILITATION to open default J.
Center for motion; Parker d. Fay opposed The Court
APPEAL PROM ORDERS.
No 264 Florence h. GIBBS respondent vs. The
Queen Insurance Company, appellants Argued by
Edward James OF counsel for appellants and by J. A.
Hathaway for respondent
GENERAL CALENDAR.
No. 142 Lewis w. James, respondent, Henry
Hamilton appellant-Argued by j. H. Thomas for
appellant and by Winchester Britton for respondent
No. l46 James NJ Boyd, respondent, VS.. Robert Vel
verton and another, appeants.-0n motion Of J. L.
Cary, Of counsel for respondent Judgment was affirmed
BY default
No $50 Isaac T. Washburne respondent vs. Ebert
l.. Burnham, appellant-Argued by George W. Lord
for appellant and by r. f.. Prince for Respondent
No ISL John j. Rider and another, appellants VS..
Cornelius s. Striker. rcSpOndent-ArgueQ Dy III j.
Hitchings, OF counsel for appellant, and d. 7. Bar
nard for respondent
Among the decisions handed down by the Court OF
Appeals to-day is affirming the sentence Of Shaw,
the Washington county murderer, aud another affirm
lug decision Of the Surrogate Of the county the
Dunlop Of this city made will devIsng her estate of
about 5000 co., the bulk to Janet A. Lahrop who
also named a executrix Miss Dunlop went 10 Mon
trea and married a clergyman named Empson, who
signed ant-nuptial contract allowing the will TO
stand. The Will offered Tor probate
the children of Edward Dunlop, Jesse's uncle
Surrogate Rogers entered order the Both Deem
Der 1874 setting aside the will Of subse-
quent marriage. This appealed from by Mr.. Sted-
man, who represented Janet A. LathrOp, TO the Cen
era Term of the Supreme Court, where the decision
Of the Surrogate sustained A. J. Parker appeared
for the children Of Edward Dunlop, contestants Mr.
where the decision Of the General Term to-day
affirmed. The viii 20 to Mrs. Lathrop, Of
Columbia county, one-third; TO Robert Dunlop, of
Syracuse, one-third and 10 the children Of Edward
Dunlop, Of Watervet, the contestants, one-third
Adjourned
The following is the day calendar for Wednesday,
October 9, 1575:Nos. ll9 III 26 100, 1853, las 155
and l5O