The New York herald., 1875-07-16
DECISIONS.
SUPREME ooURr-cHAArDERs.


by Judge Davis
Heatherton vs. Heatherton.--It was certainly
unusual 10 provide in an order OF reference that
ths report aud pay the referees tees; bat am
not prepared 10 say tnat II was an excess OF
power. / am not prepared. under the circum-
stances OF this casa, TO enforce tEat part OF the
order Dg attachment. TIE proper course, as 1t
seems to me- is n the plaintiff refuse TO take up
the motion for sllmOny aud expenses to be heard
on the report, the Court can OF course take into
allowance Tor expenses The order then to be
made can mora properly be enforced by attach
without costs. and OF course without prejudice 20
rurtAer proceedings on the motion lor ailmony
By Judge Barrett.
Seaver, &e.. vs.. Tne Mayor, &c.-ConsIdering
the character OF the clam think tnat the city
oltlclals lustined IN requiring strlct proof,
and indeed they would have 0een derelict in their
duty II they had not required It under such CIR
cumstances; the city ougut not to be mulcsed 10 q
large sum, anu think tnas an extra allowance OF
per cent upon the recovery Is reasonable and
Iust | WISH however. 70 be distinctly under
stood NOT placing any such estimate upon tho
services OF the learned counsel who have so olli-
gently and ably conducted the cause. II Is quite
clear that i've per cent would be no unreasonable
lee between themselves and thelr clients only
think tnat as between the municipal corporation
ana The plaintlls one per cent Is as much as the
icrmer ousht to be required TO contribute toward
the expenses OF tire litigation, and that II the
claim In question hs can abundantiy afrord 10
compensate counsel taerefrom for the excess.
la tue matter OF Legenoe.-MCtio granted.
Hubbard VS.. Evers.-MotiOn denied, with $40
costs TO ABIDE the event.
Rowe vs. Sonsnck.-Tne motion Is granfed so
far az to substitute the receiver as defendant in-
stead OF Schenck, upon the latter depositing In
mis- Court, to abl1e the result OF the suit, the
moneys III mis- possession (the proceeds OF the
goods. Schenck may deduct $40 COSTS OF this
motion, but nothing more and upon the deposit
being SO made Scnenck Is discharged from lia-
billy.
Schwartz vs.. Myers, No 2-Motion to vacate
order OF arrest Denied, with $40 costs.
Ferguson VS.. Ferguson.-Iue repOrt OF the ref
cree must be con ntirmed and Jud yment OF divorce
granted and the custody oil the child awarded TO
the plaiutn.
Phelan We Coll nder-I have examined the au-
thorltles cited and see no reason To change the
decision already made. The motion must be de-
MED.
Durgan VS.. Gray.-Motiou denied.
Ia the natter of Z!mmerman.-The applicant
may take an order referring u back to take proof
would be proper sum TO re allowed out OF
the amount OF the compromise.
Clark VS.. DeacOu-Moti0n granted upon pay
ment OF $40 costs OF opposing the motion.
Trask ys. Dodge.-Under the decisions the items
which have been bscted to must be uisallowed
As to the keepers fees they should have been cer
titled to by Toe otncers who Issued the attach
Insat But apart rom 9S Rs mat tae aoayts are TOO
Churcn vs. Salsbury.-TRe order was not served
and there Is no PROOF that Mr.. Hadley personally
had notice that the cause was actually on the
calendar the day when the inquest was taken.
Motion gr anted therefore with $40 costs to defen.
dant TO abide the event.
Low VS.. Brakeey.-Motion to vacate attachment
ccnied, with SO costs.
1uthIll vs.. CeccaIini-The Court will not pass
upon the validity oil the amendments brought
tupon such q motton) further than to see that
they are not frivolous. The motion must Ds
granted upon payment OF $40 cost, and the plain
tlfr may demand to sucn amended answer II so ad-
vsed.
Manhattan Life Insurance Company Vs. Dale
The sole referee testfss mat he was employed by
the defendant TO perform the extra services for
which the present referee has awarded extra
COMPENSATE The DEFENDANTS al tOrney admits
this bat says that he was attorney Tor the pur
chaser, and that II was In that capacity that no
employed the sale referee. lie does not pI etend
that be informed the sale referee, and the lat
ter is not to be deprived OF his Well earned COM
pensat.on because OF the attorneys assertion as
TO his undisc o5sd understanding OF hts OVID posi-
tion The fact Is that he was the de.endanrs ar
torney, and AS such smplo!ed the referee. This
is tile inding OF the present reeree on cOpdictng
statements W1tn the burden IN the referees ravor
The report must be confirmed and the exceptions
The tenth National Bank VS.. Holiness Motion
granted and the Clerk may return to Mr.. Miller
GO. the original demurrer and the copy summons
and complaint addressed to the defendant.
Kelley VS.. RObnson.-Moiion to vacate sub
p9na ana to dismiss examination denied with
| $40 costs.
Ammidown vs. wing-Motion to vacate order
oil arrest denied, with 80 costs.
Ssoner vs.. Stoner.-Relerred back to take pro OF
OF residence and Identification OF the defenoant,
as | have repeatedly held the testimony or the
vile Is cendned 70 proof or marriage.
in the matter OF Aare.-Report confirmed and
order granted.
with the evidence as Il stands. 1t s not expedi-
ent to sell the property at the present time unless
some one OF the tenants in common Is willing to
testify TO determination on his part to force a
sale by partition, ana under no circumstances
Will the Court consent 10 permit eighty or ninety
per cent or more than fifty per cent TO remain on
mortgage.
Field VS.. Lopez.-The application for an inJunc-
tion Is wholly without iounuatlon, ana must be
denied
SUPREME COURT TERM.
By Judge Van Worst.
Barry VS.. Mutual Life Insurance Company
judgment for plaIniiH. See opinion.
BY Judge Van Brunt
Wilton ct al. Ys. SprIpg.-fndngs signed.