The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-13

the matter or Masterson; Zweig vs.. Madrigan and
another; Fowler ~. Mccormack; Hoppin vs.. COZ.
zeas: Heller vs.. Schneittasher; IN the mater OF
GRAY; C0nnor vs.. Myers; In the matter OF United
states ana Mexican Telegraph Company; War
ner ". fennsvyanla Railroad Company CHAP
man vs.. Clapman.-Granted.
Newman ~ Newmann.-0ne OF the atiidayi Is
Is not properly entitled.
In TIE matter 81 Lathrop; Gerard vs.. Gerard;
Mclean vs.. Joseph CONN We. Wnite-Memoran'
dums Tor counsel.
Bias vs.. New Orleans ST. Louis ana Memphis
Railroad Company.-fhe examination Will pro-
ceel, IN mus re confined 70 matters tending 10
lmpeach Air. Kitchens certificate ana the attend
ance 81 the witness must De compelled oy suU-
pGna.
In me matter OF Fannng.-In this case l do not
clearly understand what order Is asked Tor oy the
counsel Tor the receiver.
LaDgdon W. Langdon. - desire the counsel OBJ
Jectng 70 portions Of the proposed decree TO state
Maginn VS. Burke-Un!ess tue consent 10 refer
Is signed BY a the parties To the action or their
attorneys, rule IS OF the Court precudes the APP
pontment OF the gentleman named as referee.
Harper vs.. she man.-Apphcation is denied.
Sec Mcclure VS.. Palmer Robertson, 507.
Harden W. Corbett.-rne motion TO compel the
defendant 70 furnish further Dill OF particulars
Is denied. with cost OF motion.
Bunker vs. Inc Guardian Life Insurance Com
ana defendants In this case.
pam6mann vs. oscnnli,ingmon payment OF the
iendant the case may be discontinued
siadt vs. me international Insurance Com.
pany.-Expianation required.
Null vs. tMaugam.-Fhere must be a reference in
tnis case 70 ascertain the facts alleged Ia the
afidavits, on which the arldayits Of the parties
are IN conflict. Let an order be entered referring
the case TO Mr. A. y. W. BALDWIN, 10 take test
mony aud 70 report The same with his opinion
thereon.
Van Zile VS.. Van Zile.-Reiused Tor reason stated
In previous memorandum.
Chase VS.. Norton.-Order grained.
Briant vs. De Forest mere should be REFER
snce TO ascertain lacts
nature Or this action and whether n Is relerabe.
Newman vs. New nann the anidavt having
been annexed must be rc-swOrn to.
ltn 10
appointed.
Benedict VS.. The WidmOnt Manufacturing Com
pany.-lhe original papers are still wanting; I'M
less furnished AT once the case must be treated as
upon default.
Sixth National Bank vs. chicago and Alton Rail
road COMPANY. Application FOR resett!ement
denied me order as entered was proper.
Pnelan vs. walker. order granted
Clark vs. Coles.-0rder granted denying motion.
SUPREME COURT SPECIAL TERM
By Judge Van BrunL
Booth vs. Kehoe Palmer V. Dixon.-FndnGa
More vs.. Herrman.-Findtngs must be sub.
mltted.
Bennett vs.. Cohen.-Orders granted.
SUPERIOR coURT-sPEcIAL TERM.
BY Judge Freedman.
Wlllmonr vs. MeserOle ct al.-Case settled. see
memorandum Tor counsel
Oppenneimer VI. I2uen.-Memorandum for
scnwao vs.. Aarons ct al.-hotion granted, with
$40 costs.
Buchanan vs.. Jackson, Jr.-Judgment for plain
tid and order tor writ oiinqutry 20 Sheriff, &C.
Snafer ". schneider ct al.-0ruer or references
10 compute amount due. &c.
0nlnger e. al ". he Vol et al-Bond approved.
Templelon V. Johnson ct aL-Motion granted.
Memorandum.
WremAn ~ The Remington Sewing Machine
Company-Upon the facts disclosed Dy the am
ddvtts this motion should be granted Be-
sldes. the matter set up IN this proposed amended
answer Is no defence. The contract disclosed by
the complainant ana proposed amendment IS ex-
epQfOrY. n
tracted Tor they should nave been returned. The
defendant cannot detain the articles ana resist
an action Tor tue price agreed 70 be paia lrome-
roy vs. shaw, Daly, 261.l
COMMON PLEAS GENERAL TERM.
By Cnier Justice Daily and Judges Larremore and
J. T.. Day.
The People. DC, W. Mcnamara: The People &C..
vs. McAvay. Judgment on the recognizance dis
charged.