The New York herald., 1875-10-28
be trial viii be resumed this morning.
THE WATSON EsTATE TRANsFER.

The following decision was yesterday rendered by
Surrogate Hutcnings TO the Watson estate
Flrst--Ihat the account Of the said United States
Trust Company as rendered and which shows a bal
ance due The said estate Of SI5 4j H. and interest st
the rate Of three per cent per from October TO-
20 the sum OF S7l649s 50, be and the Is hereby
approved and confirmed.
Seeona-That out Of the said sum the said United
States Trust Company do pay Edgar = Van Winke
the sum Of $500 40 being the Of his bill for
professional services 70 sad Trust Company and that
the said United states Trust Company do OF
said sum for their services trustee Ihe sum Of
$572 46, hereby allowed 70 them therefor.
Thfrd-That out OF the balance " said sum the said
Trust Company do pay TO the Attorney General the
State Of New York, or 70 Wheeler II. Peckhain the
representative Of said Attorney General the sum Of
$500 435 - by certified check drawn the order Of
the Treasurer Of the State OF New York the same 70
apply and to be payment pro tanto Of The Iudg-
ment recovered BY the people Of the state or New York
IN their Supreme Court against Margaret X Watson
administering Of said James Watson deceased and
docketed N The oee Of the Clerk of the County Of New
YORK on the Zst day Of October 1875, the same being
Of said Judgment
Fourh-rhai the said Trus, Company 40 nav The
balance Of said money ts hands 70 the admnstrarix
Margaret X Watson, for distribution among other
creditors Of the sad estate they may entted to
the same. ROBERT &, HUTCHINGs Surrogate
AN ARCHITECTS CERTIFICATE.
In SUIT brought by Joseph Ross against Robert
Finan appeal taken from Judgment ordered by
Judge Aker At the trial term n June lat Tor about
81 900 in Of The plantn against lhc defendant
The action was brought building contract made ~
Finan with Ross for the erection or building Al
Hunters Point. Ross claimed a balance or about
ST. 900 the last nstalment for the erection Of build
ing obtained certificate Of the architect that the
work was completely performed. The answer or
Finan admitted the contract but denied the Indebted
and claimed that the building not erected ac
cording the contract and that the certificate the
on the trial or the case before Judge
AIker the plaintiff proved tbs contract
and The certificate the architect that the work had
been performed The defendant moved 10 dismiss the
complaint on the ground that performance Of the
contract had been shown by the plaintiff and breach
on the part Of the defendant and that the certificate
was not 10 conformity 70 substance eject with the
erus q the contract This motion Judge Alker de.
MED. The defendant then offered show that the
time of the giving of the cerudcate the work had not
been done ~ Al according 70 the pans and specidca
tons Of the contract that different bu any ma besn
erected entirely rom the terms ot the contract and
mat the certificate oi the contract fraud ~ a.
o, nv, a'oss m & q evidence Wa ruled
was directed Nv the Judge lRv0r 81 The aainflr ~
appeal was taken from his decision which came ou for
NcAdam, 0f General Term
Mr. samuel ~ Courtney on behalf of ", Ft,ar
argued that the certificate void not bslns n en
formy With the terms 81 TIE contract and That sv9p
n t a good certificate he claimed t1at a a. :
fraun, known " bc 50 by the architect and the n
~ the time he obtained III, that the COurt erred N
overruling bis offers 81 testimony the ouv wav q
show fraud we're the circumstances And surrounanrs
OF the case the incomplete ana lndn shcd state Or bs
building, which waS known by the architect al ia
time he gave the certificate and Oh the further prornd
that tho certificate Itself % its face faisehood
and that circumstances going ~ show Fraudulent uteft
upon the part ~ the architect and the plautid we're
questions OF fact % BE- submitted 70 The Jury He
cited authorities 20 sustain hs position and before he
concluded The Court said they desired % hear aim 10
iurtber, but would hear tho other side
Mr. Leeds. counsel Tor Ross, proceeded n argue me
case behalf ii his client, when ne vas interrupted
by Judge She's, vip asked him what ~ had 10 cay M
reference o0er ~ proof " fraudulent certificate
tho part o the architect, whch offer lad been made
BY Mr. Courtney