The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-18
DECISIONS.
supREME coUsr-cHAMnERS
BY Judge Lawrence.

sUpBEME CoUBr--cHAMBER&
BY Judge Lawrence.
Edwards vs. HathawaJ--1 the DEFENDANT de-
deriakina prescribed py he code. see no reason
for Interference with the painn IN collecting his
Judgment Motion denied, with $40 costs.
in the Matter OF Lehmaier.-EXpianation re-
quired.
Tracy 10 correct IN orm and the order presented
by Mr. Forster is incorrect tnis latter order is va
Gated
Amss VS.. Redlsn.-MotiOn to discharge prisoner
In The Matter or District Court No. 1.--Foroster.
Approved.
cree, which provides for allowance, until have
some Information as 20 the yalue OF the property
ana As 20 the percentage on Which the allowance
Meigs, &c, vs.. Tomllnson.-order as settled.
Crump vs. The Mayor, &c.-The complaint
alleges That the two boards comprising Tue Com
mon Council duly adopted the resolution IN ques-
non L sacSvae1 70 ina 81 sn all ' tse
members elected TO each board had been given
for said resolution. TIE demurrer necessarily
admits that the resolution was duly passed. rms
BEING So cannot resist the conclusion that the
demurrer, on the ground that the complaint does
not state facts SUFFICIENT TO constitute cause or
action must be overTnied as frivolous and Judg-
ment rendered for the plaintiff, vita costs
MSl!ory ys. Hazen.-lhe taxation Of tAe clerk 10
Danbmann w. schulung.-An allowance OF
500 granted - the defendant
Miller va. DaIlamore.-i viii grant. an order 70
show cause. but cannot enJon the defendant
pending the argument OF the motion unless the
plaintiff gives the Undertaking prescribed by tue
code. see is y. Y. Reports, p. 463,
Drummer VS.. King-I do not leel justified In dis
tuIoing the.yerdict q the JaTy IN this case. Inc
awarded are not excessive, aud Il any error was
committed by rue, either IA my charge 10 the jury
or In my rulings during the trial, the defenuant
must correct lie error Dy appek Wsits Prac-
lce, 42S and cases cited Of robertson, 800. Motion
Jung VS.. suyaain.-On the arndavits read upon
the motion the preponderaLee Of evidence IL wIth
tue defendant and cannot therefore appoint
receiver On tue sround that the mOrtgaged prem
ise5 . scaDy security Tor ine debt. The mo-
tion u therefore denied, without costs, put VITA
leave to tne plaintiff % hereafter renew 10 on fur-
taer anldavts II the cause - nos tried at the jane
Geonard vs. Tne Mayor 6c.-The motion for
Injunction this case Is denied, Tor me reaso
tnas IL the position taken by the plaIntns coun-
face ana there will therefore he no ground for tie
interference OF a court OF equity.
Jones VS.. Fltz John P0rter.-The respondent
was not tue Commissioner oil Public WORKS II the
time the work IN question was performed | DO
not see how he can De compelled w mandamus
he can have no knowledge. nor 90 appreciate
the point made ~ the REALTORS counsel 70 the
enecI that TIE superintendent Of the Bureau OF
Repairs and supplies has other and greater
powers IL respect 70 the W0rk 70 be performed
under his supervision Than Tue nead o. other on,
reGus ~ sald depar meat. The case ~ nard
one, but the hardship cannot contr0s the law. No
tlon denled, without costs.
han0lt vs.. Odell.-Under rule II the general
guardian must give security on unencGmOeret
real estate 10 account 70 tue iulanE, &c. The act
that he mas given security In the STATE oil New
Jersey ana without the jurisdiction d lhis CouEs
does not amount 90 = compliance Win tbs rule.
Newman W Newman nc order or TIE puoii
cation 81 the summons cannot be granted uatll
le.iDle Afdaylt Of the alleged trsnsiaton " the
letter = presented - the court II - almost tut
possible 70 declpher me aLldaVlt annexed " tsc
papers nov be ore mo. The name Of tie trans
latOr signed 70 the anldavit Is also sceiled en-
trely diuerent rom TIE name o. tAe AMAnL IN toe
Uody OF tie andavit.
Bfstt v. Rogers think thar Il = possible 80
IT. TINS cause IN al nourt bnt cannot grant Tue
motion 70 place tne cause upon Tic specla CIRCUIT
calendar ~ long as plaintiff is technically IA
DEFAULT 10 Mt serving reply. sna. auoW lne
motion, therefore, 70 stand over untn Tue question
- 70 We repiy FItieu on motion. -.
Mcneil ". The washington Lie insurance CON-
pnnJ.-lhers "a No necessity Iof an lnlehpeaocf
IN THIS case. Ire allegtG t0Iolgh guaralsn hAs ~
status mere, and u * quite evident that sue mas
no claim upon tue amount due on tue policy OF m
surance, Wnlcl caa PC asserted as against we
tiie Of the keheldl anu ku~Inlth ~ item u the
lniant p.alntlI AppVsusSu ~ us Court me nv
TON - aenseo' su' ntuVus 0OsS' having oesA
made IN 2oOd Iaith
a., -, ~ suaee bst is.i.. ..,,... ~
Blnme y. Inc trustees Of cong egattun Beta
El.-Ihe impressions susgestea upon lhe srkn4nehts
nave Only oee1 S1LnIme9, W AZ e4ainla~alont ~
the papers ana w aatnoti,es clsea. lGe MOTION
70 continue the injunction must. therefore pc oe-
nle8 And tue temporary INJUNCTION al-soNea VITA
sl0 costs. $500, ~. =. -. r,t..-- -
Inc SIKH NaHon44 pans ~ Ing I hle ~ anu
Alton Ealfoad 1oMpaaF.-Lhe previous yfoeIs
maze % Le neleih ~ ~. hO.iNL @te NsSN' SUI
y = ses, \. \, ~ !. y o.s .sss
am " ses1is sAs sans - 70 aeeA 'oa'Hci ssuSs
proper. ,.,,- ,,x 80, 1870.
Inc Er H,s se es',e ~
~ ne mater q "a ~ -IVhha "nu the 1tIo.ts
ana ~ ne ~ ro az
lheIe - no pVWst ~ shsaoa NJ ~ Nsstcl ~ aiao
court. ~ p 49, upyh N hotlst elthet ~ ~
p0thunN the cVhiAisAtDLels ~ 4ttlhlh9 " ~ ~
10 Give the Court jurisdiction tue statute must be
strictly comphea 49, So ~ notlee mus sps.hy